Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Farmers (Incomes)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the progress being made with measures to reverse the decline in Welsh farmers' net incomes has taken place over the past four years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Net farm incomes in Wales fell in only one of the last four years for which figures are available. I am satisfied that adequate measures are being taken by the Government to safeguard the interests of industry

Mr. Hooson: Has my hon. Friend been able to make an estimate of the likely effect of the CAP negotiations on the state of Welsh agriculture?

Mr. Roberts: I think that it is too early to speculate on the final consequences of the settlement, since the negotiations are continuing, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is striving for a settlement that will provide a fair balance between the needs of producers, consumers and taxpayers and also contribute to the building of a common agricultural policy that reflects the many competing needs of the Community.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the Minister seriously telling the House that the hill farmers in the less favoured areas, whose incomes fell by 58 per cent. last year, are being adequately supported?

Mr. Roberts: Yes, because we have improved the hill farming compensatory allowances

Sir Raymond Gower: To what extent are farmers in Wales prejudiced or in a worse position than farmers in other parts of the EEC?

Mr. Roberts: That is a very difficult question to answer. I do not think that our farmers are particularly badly placed. My right hon. Friend is determined in the current negotiations to see that British agriculture is protected and that it continues to prosper.

Dr. Roger Thomas: In the light of his answer, will the Minister explain why the incomes of farmers in Wales and Scotland are suffering particularly badly compared with the incomes of livestock farmers in the Republic of Ireland? Secondly, why is the Republic of Ireland continually being given preferential treatment for land drainage and general land improvement?

Mr. Roberts: Certain national forms of support are available for agriculture. We must await the outcome of the current negotiations and see what additional support farmers in Wales require.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest number of unemployed in Wales expressed both as a percentage and as a total; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): On 12 March 1981 there were 146,781 unemployed in Wales, a rate of 13·6 per cent.

Mr. Jones: Does not those objectionable figures dramatically support the 364 university economists—including 76 professors—who say that the Government are mishandling the economy of our country? Does the Minister know that in my constituency, after


8,000 steel job losses in a year, 380 textile workers are soon to be thrown on the scrap-heap? Where are the new jobs coming from for my very angry and disillusioned constituents?

Mr. Roberts: This morning I took note of the 350 or so economists who signed their own "early-day motion". I also listened to one of them on the radio. I understand that he was an adviser to the Labour Government. Perhaps that is not a particularly good qualification. I am aware of the 250 additional redundancies at the Courtaulds Greenfield works. On 9 March work recommenced on a modernisation project. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that a slimline textile works will give the industry a better future.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend ponder carefully the implications of the loss of 380 jobs at the Courtaulds Greenfield mill? Will he reflect that it is part of the process of modernisation? Can my hon. Friend envisage any way of avoiding the continuation of such a process if industry is to recover its competitiveness and thus provide the wealth to finance the expansion of the economy and, in particular, of the social services? That is the only way in which to provide the jobs needed.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I confess that I am not particularly familiar with the Courtaulds Greenfield works. However, in 1980 there was a slimlining of the steel industry in South Wales, which led to both Llanwern and Port Talbot becoming much more competitive.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Minister agree that the 146,781 unemployed to whom he referred include many who were involved in industries that had nothing to do with modernisation? People have been thrown on to the slag heap. The figure that he cited includes about 5,000 school leavers who are still on the dole queue. How many more Easter school leavers will join that dole queue as a direct consequence of the Government's actions?

Mr. Roberts: Before I attempt to answer that question, I welcome the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) back to his place.
Modernisation is not the cause of all the redundancies or of all the unemployment in Wales. I recognise that recession has played a great part in unemployment. We are not unaware of the difficulties that face the unemployed, particularly school leavers. We have increased the number of youth opportunity positions for next year from 27,000 to 43,000.

Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that not so long ago an additional £20 million was granted by the EEC for the steel and coal closure areas, which will probably create an extra 4,000 jobs? Is he also aware that the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) is seeking to deny Wales the prospect of more jobs by his stance of supporting the official Labour Party?

Mr. Roberts: There can be no doubt that membership of the EEC is vital for the retention of many jobs and for the creation of others in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister recall the forecast made by the economics department in Bangor a year ago to the effect that unemployment in Wales would increase to over 170,000? Does he now accept that forecast?

Mr. Roberts: As is the custom of those who speak from this Dispatch Box, I have no intention of making any forecast. I shall certainly not accept anybody else's forecast.

Pupil-Teacher Ratios

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the pupil to teacher ratio in primary schools in Wales at the most recent count; and how this compares with the ratio in 1979.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The ratio was 21·9 to 1 in January 1980 compared with 22 to 1 the previous year.

Mr. Knox: Is the current ratio a record?

Mr. Roberts: The pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools in Wales is, indeed, a record.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Will the Minister comment on the anomaly of a comprehensive school in South Glamorgan which has a pupil-teacher ratio of between 13 and 14 to 1, whilst comparable schools in other parts of Wales have a pupil-teacher ratio of between 16 and 17 to 1?

Mr. Roberts: The original question was about pupil-teacher ratios in primary schools, but I am happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. The difference between the pupil-teacher ratio in a school in South Glamorgan and that in Dyfed, for example, could be due to falling school rolls. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is not easy to transfer teachers from one school to another and from one authority to another.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is not the Minister's answer thoroughly undermined by the report presented to him by the inspectorate, which made it clear that last year only one authority in Wales succeeded, overall, in improving its pupil-teacher ratio? In all other authorities the overall pupil-teacher ratio has been reduced.

Mr. Roberts: Once again we have strayed from the subject of primary schools into general education. I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the pupil-teacher ratio for all schools in Wales is 18 to 1. Again, that is a record.

Welsh Resource Centre

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what further progress he has made towards the establishment of a Welsh Resource Centre.

Mr. Michael Roberts: We have no plans to set up a Welsh Resource Centre, but the feasibility of so doing is being studied as part of a research project set up by the Wales TUC. We have made a grant of £40,000 towards the cost of this study.

Mr. Best: Would not the establishment of a Welsh Resource Centre be an ideal way of channelling private funds into future investment in the Principality? Do not the TUC's suggestion and the Government's gracious grant towards the feasibility study show that there is greater awareness and cohesion within Wales and that the TUC is prepared to work with the Government towards the prosperity of Wales? Is that not a welcome advance, upon which the Government could build? It is not necessarily only the Opposition who can co-operate with the Wales TUC.

Mr. Roberts: The Welsh Resource Centre does not exist, but a feasibility study is being conducted by the


Wales TUC with the help of a grant from the Welsh Office. There can be no question but that the relationship between the Government and the Wales TUC is excellent. That is demonstrated in many ways, and not least by the splendid work on inward investment done by the chairman of the Wales TUC when he accompanied my right hon. Friend to Japan.

Overseas Firms (Investment)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total of investment in Wales since 1972 by firms based outside the United Kingdom; and how many jobs in Wales have been created by this inward investment.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Investment by overseas-based manufacturing firms in Wales since 1972 is known to be in excess of £500 million. The projects in question currently provide over 11,000 jobs.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does not that illustrate the importance of continuing to attract such investment, particularly when a very small amount—less than 10 per cent. of public expenditure—goes into investment from our own resources? Is it not clear that if we were to withdraw from the EEC such investment would dry up altogether? Britain, and particularly Wales, is attractive to foreign investors as a means of access to the EEC.

Mr. Roberts: I have no doubt that overseas firms are interested in Wales because of our membership of the EEC. The Ford plant at Waterton in South Wales is an excellent example. It is irresponsible to talk about withdrawal, because it would cost many jobs.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, although the referendum campaign received multinational sponsorship, some of us were prepared to judge the Common Market on its merits? Does not the evidence show that the decision to join the Common Market was the most disastrous one to be taken by any post-war British Government?

Mr. Roberts: It is generous of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) to judge the matter on its merits.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the figure given by the Minister include the £10 million for the development of the massive Hoover factory at Merthyr—a factory designed to produce goods for the Common Market, but which to date has produced nothing? Does the figure also include the investment which has been made since 1972 but which has been aborted as a direct consequence of the Government's actions? Will the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously a keen student of the newspapers, say whether he has seen the study conducted by University College, Bangor, which shows that the effect of the Budget on Wales will mean unemployment of 200,000 by the end of this year? If the hon. Gentleman does not want to make any forecast, may I ask whether he has any reason to believe that that figure of 200,000 will not be reached?

Mr. Roberts: I have no intention of making any forecast of unemployment at any point in future.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does the Minister agree that inward investment in Wales in recent years would have been better if the Welsh infrastructure, particularly communications, had been better? If so, will he have a word with the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to implementing an immediate programme to develop the Welsh infrastructure?

Mr. Roberts: There can be no question but that investment would have been greater if our infrastructure over the last few decades had been better. The Government are doing all that they can to ensure that the road programme is maintained. Advance factories are also being set up. I think that we are doing a good job in that respect in Wales.

University of Wales (Heath Hospital)

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish the report of the Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation on the defects in the construction of the University of Wales Heath hospital; what are the estimated costs of the needed remedial work; what steps are being taken to recover such costs from those responsible for the defective work; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The firm of consultant engineers commissioned to carry out a structural survey of the University Hospital of Wales building has prepared a draft interim report which I do not propose to publish, but which estimates the costs of the recommended remedial work at £6·29 million. The question of liability is under consideration by our legal advisers.

Mr. Abse: Why will the Minister not publish the interim report? Will he assure us that he will at least publish the final report, as taxpayers' money is involved, and because from the beginning there has been concern about the way that the decision was made and the inadequate supervision? If legal proceedings are pending, and if, by discovery, any potential defendent can get access to the report, why is there a cover up at this stage and a refusal, in effect, to make the full facts known to the community?

Mr. Roberts: There is no cover up. The publication of the final report will be considered when it is received. As liability issues are under consideration, I shall need to be sure that publication either of the interim report or of the final report will not prejudice any contemplated legal action. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his legal knowledge, will understand that.

Mr. Coleman: Will the Minister ensure that, despite the vast sum of money that is to be expended on this hospital in Cardiff, other projects throughout Wales will not suffer? We have had this difficulty in the past.

Mr. Roberts: It is a tragedy that this has happened, but the situation is beginning to improve. Work is already planned to the tune of £500,000, and that is included in capital spending for the coming year. I shall seek to ensure that the necessary work is phased so that the capital programme for Wales as a whole is not adversely affected.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest percentage figures of unemployment in Aberdare, Mid-Glamorgan and Wales, respectively; and what action is proposed to improve employment prospects.

Mr. Hudson Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage increase in the number of persons unemployed in the Mid-Glamorgan area since May 1979; and what action he proposes to take to reduce this figure.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The unemployment rates in Aberdare, Mid-Glamorgan and Wales on 12 Match 1981 were 15·6, 14·4, and 13·6 per cent. respectively. Between May 1979 and March 1981 the level of unemployment in Mid-Glamorgan increased by 80·2 per cent.

Mr. Rowlands: Did the hon. Gentleman say 80 per cent?

Mr. Roberts: It is 80·2 per cent. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) cannot hear. The employment prospects for these areas and the country as a whole depend upon reducing inflation and creating conditions in which industry can compete successfully.

Mr. Evans: Is that not proof that the Government's economic and industrial policies are disastrous? Unemployment is increasing by more than 1 million per year. When the Prime Minister reiterates that there are no alternative policies, will she look at the documents issued by the Wales TUC, the British TUC, the CBI, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, because they have said that monetarist policies will not work and will have disastrous consequences?

Mr. Roberts: Some of the amalgams of those policies were put forward in a recent debate in the House by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), and the cost was analysed. That did not prove to be an attractive possibility.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Does the Minister agree that the increase of more than 80 per cent. in unemployment in less than two years is deplorable? Does he further agree that that figure is likely to be exacerbated by the cuts in rail services in the valleys, which come into effect this day? Does he further agree that the ability of people to travel to work and the attractiveness of the Welsh valleys in terms of future industry depend upon the existence of viable rail services? Is he aware of the demonstrations taking place this day by railway employees in South Wales who have been asked to implement the new timetables? Will he seek—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked four questions. I think that the Minister should answer them now.

Mr. Roberts: I deplore unemployment in Mid-Glamorgan as much as I do in any other part of Wales or the United Kingdom. Unemployment has seriously affected Mid-Glamorgan for a long time. There is no dispute about the need to improve the infrastructure to ensure that the valleys are prosperous.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's hypocrisy is stunning? Is he aware that 100,000 people in Wales were made redundant under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979? Is he further aware that 53,000 coal miners have been made redundant in Wales under Labour Governments since the war? Finally, is he aware that the rise in unemployment

in Wales in the past 12 months was only 59 per cent. which compares favourably with 69 per cent. as a United Kingdom average?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a time for questions, not speeches.

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend's questions show that the problems associated with unemployment did not start 18 months ago.

Mr. Rowlands: Given the staggering figure of 80 per cent. unemployment since May 1979, will the Minister restore special development area status to those parts of Mid-Wales from which it has been taken away?

Mr. Roberts: All areas of high unemployment in Wales are constantly being considered for regional area status. However, we recognise that aid should be concentrated on areas such as Ebbw Vale or Bargoed, where unemployment is highest.

Mr. Alec Jones: It was remiss of me not to thank the hon. Gentleman earlier for his kind remarks about me.
The Opposition are concerned not only with the rise in unemployment that has taken place throughout Wales, particularly in Mid-Glamorgan, with 80 per cent., but with the future. Whether the hon. Gentleman reads it and likes it or not, we are concerned that the CBI's latest forecast indicates that unemployment could reach 3¼ million next year. How much of that unemployment will be represented by the people of Wales joining the dole queue? What responsible body of opinion in Wales now believes that the Government's policies are working?

Mr. Roberts: I am certain that many people in Wales recognise that over a long period previous Governments took an easy option. The Government have had to do something which may not be popular, but which, we believe, will bring prosperity to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied that the common agricultural policy provides an adequate arrangement to benefit Welsh farmers and Welsh consumers.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Government believe that membership of the European Community is essential for the well-being of the economy but will continue to press for changes in the CAP which will benefit consumers and taxpayers while safeguarding the interests of producers.

Mr. Marlow: We all believe that membership of the Community is important, but is the Welsh consumer currently satisfied with having to pay four times as much for his or her butter, three times as much for his or her beef and twice as much for his or her cereals as world market prices? Are the Welsh people as a whole satisfied with having to pay higher prices than they need to? Would not the Welsh farmer prefer to get his agricultural support from the United Kingdom rather than from the CAP, whereby we pay, not only for agricultural support for our own farmers, but for many Continental farmers as well?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is suggesting a return to deficiency payments. He was not in the Chamber when I said in answer to a previous question that it was a little early to speculate about the results of the current negotiations. I said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will bear in mind the needs of consumers as well as those of producers and taxpayers.

Mr. Denzil Davies: As it is the Government's stated policy to defeat inflation, whatever that means, will the Minister give an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will veto all price increases in Brussels at the present price fixing review, especially for products in surplus? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory Party's manifesto said that a Conservative Government would do so?

Mr. Roberts: I would not deign to interfere with the negotiations that my right hon. Friend is conducting.

Steel Workers (Retraining)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent discussions with officials of the British Steel Corporation concerning retraining courses for redundant Welsh steel workers.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The Welsh Office maintains close and regular contact with officials of the British Steel Corporation on all matters concerning the corporation's activities in Wales.

Mr. Hughes: Despite that close co-operation, does the Minister appreciate that there is considerable resentment among redundant steel workers at the delay in the payments they were promised after being made redundant and about the courses that have been made available, especially the welding course at Port Talbot which 60 men from Newport are attending? Will the hon. Gentleman promise to investigate these issues?

Mr. Roberts: As for the delay in the payment of redundancy terms, it was ever thus. When East Moors steel workers were made redundant, I received many complaints from them about delay. If the hon. Gentleman sends me details I shall ensure that the complaints are taken up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Midland welding school at Port Talbot. I understand that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who is considering the matter. There is nothing further that I can add now.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, thanks partly to aid from the Coal and Steel Community, the provisions for retraining redundant steel workers are, on the whole, satisfactory? Is he further aware that it is the employees of the private steel firms who are now feeling the draught, who do not receive such generous redundancy payments?

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I was aware of it but I am not sure that every hon. Member is equally aware of the contribution of the Coal and Steel Community.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister consider the laggardly payments to hundreds of my constituents who were formerly steel workers? Is he aware that this delay

is part of the general complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) outlined in his supplementary question? is the hon. Gentleman further aware that there have been delays in the payment of travelling expenses to redundant steel workers who are attending skill centres?

Mr. Roberts: I shall look into that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will provide me with the necessary details.

Mr. Alec Jones: In the close contacts that the Minister suggests that he has with the corporation will he ensure that the corporation does not grant to an American mining company a contract worth £50 million over the next three years for further coal imports? When he is taking part in the discussions with the corporation, will he remind it that, as the National Coal Board buys British steel, the corporation should buy British coal?

Mr. Roberts: The main question relates to retraining courses for Welsh steel workers but I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall draw the attention of the British Steel Corporation to what he says.

Industrialists (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied that there is no duplication of function between the Welsh Development Agency and the industrial section of the Welsh Office which leads to unnecessary bureaucracy and the delaying in processing applications for financial assistance by industrialists.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that when companies come to new factories in Wales, few though those be these days, they may have to approach both the Welsh Development Agency for the factory and the industrial department of the Welsh Office for grants? There is an independent vetting system for the two applications. If the applications run in sequence rather than in parallel, that can lead to considerable delays and can jeopardise projects as well as involving additional bureaucracy. Will the hon. Gentleman carry out an investigation into the independent vetting systems?

Mr. Roberts: I know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We have had conversations about Anon Microelectronics Ltd. However, we must remember that the roles of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency are different. The Welsh Office is concerned with grants that have to be approved by WIDAB. The Welsh Development Agency is concerned with giving loans on a commercial basis. The criteria are different. It is for companies to ensure that the applications either for grant or loan run concurrently. That is a matter for them rather than for me.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Is not my hon. Friend saddened to think that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has not bothered to read the Select Committee's report on employment in Wales, which analysed these matters quite fully and made recommendations?

Mr. Roberts: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has read the report. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that progress is being made with Arfon Microelectronic Ltd. I wrote to


its managing director today to tell him that the firm may go ahead with the project, without prejudice, of course, to any grant that may be made later by the Welsh Office.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is it not a fact that many other recommendations set out in the Select Committee's report have not been implemented by the Government? In view of the mass of closures, liquidations and bankruptcies, will the Government ensure that the WDA and the Welsh Office intervene to prevent further closures in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: The Welsh Office and the WDA work closely together.

Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend direct his attention to the delay in the payment of regional development grants? I appreciate that the Government's stance is that no exceptions can be made. However, is he aware that in some circumstances future investments in Wales might be lost because of the delay in making payments? Will he consider this factor carefully with my right hon. Friend with a view to providing that in certain circumstances some exceptions can be made?

Mr. Roberts: If my hon. Friend has any specific instances in mind, I shall be happy to consider any written submissions that he makes to me.

Road Building

Mr. Delwyn Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the progress of the road building programme in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Yes. Our programme for trunk road improvement in Wales was set out in "Roads in Wales 1980" published last December.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware of the concern of my constituents about the Llanidloes and Welshpool bypasses? Is he aware that Llanidloes is scheduled to start in 1987? Is he further aware that the lack of firm proposals for the bypass means that the development of the industrial part of Llanidloes is being severely restrained? Does he realise that the social structure of Welshpool and its industrial development is being held back because of the doubts about the potential development of the Welshpool bypass? Does he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be something in the air in Montgomeryshire.

Mr. Roberts: Dealing with Llanidloes bypass, I am aware of the recent representations from the town council and Powys county council about the bypass scheme, but it has not been given high priority. We have received a substantial number of objections to our proposals on the Welshpool bypass and those are currently being considered. I shall undertake to consider any suggestions made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the road building programme of the Welsh Office takes into account the implications of the Armitage report? Will he investigate the effect that heavy lorries might have on the A5, the A55 and the A470 in Gwynedd where the county council is seriously worried, especially about the dry stone walls which may crumble as a result?

Mr. Roberts: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall look into the matter without delay.

Mr. Hooson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread approval in Wales for the high priority that has been given to the trunk road building programme in a period of necessary Government economy?

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Necessary for whom?

Mr. Roberts: We regard the trunk road programme as essential to the infrastructure of the Principality.

Mr. Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give more urgent attention to the A465 road, as that gives access to the Rheola works, which is threatened by closure, a proposal that is being resisted most vigorously? Will he ensure that the road is developed so that the works has a future?

Mr. Roberts: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the A465. I have arranged to meet representatives of the West Glamorgan county council next month to discuss the scheme. At this stage I do not want to anticipate the outcome of that meeting.

Anthracite

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in his discussions with the National Coal Board in Wales, consideration has been given to further investment in the anthracite sector of the South Wales coalfield.

Mr. Michael Roberts: In all his discussions with the National Coal Board my right hon. Friend takes account of prospests for future investment in the South Wales coalfield, including anthracite.

Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that, apart from opencast mining, there is a distinct shortage of top-class anthracite coal in South Wales? Is he aware that the National Union of Mineworkers is keen on reopening the Cwmgwili colliery, involving an investment of £5 million, to reach a deep deposit of coal underneath the villages of Llanarthney and Ty-Croes?

Mr. Roberts: I am aware of the shortage of British-mined anthracite, despite the splendid record established at the Bettws colliery recently. It is a question of further investment by the National Coal Board. I shall draw its attention to that.

Education Service

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he accepts the conclusions of "The Effect on the Education Service in Wales of Recent Local Authority Expenditure Policies: An Assessment by Her Majesty's Inspectors."

Mr. Michael Roberts: I have noted the report and accept the overall conclusion that the fabric of education in schools is intact.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept the situation whereby the majority of schools now require parents to contribute to their children's education?

Mr. Roberts: Parental contribution did not start last year or the year before. It has been commonplace in Welsh education. I have no doubt that it will continue and that parental contributions will be used as valuable additions towards school equipment.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the serious matters that we are discussing, only six


Opposition Members of the 23 from Wales are present? Does he share my disgust at the lack of representation from the Principality?

Mr. Faulds: Look at the quality.

Mr. Roberts: If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) looks behind him he will see what that quality consists of.

Factory Construction

Sir Raymond: Gower asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of factories now under construction in Wales; how many are being constructed by the Welsh Development Agency and by the Development Board for Rural Wales, respectively; and how many are sited within the area of the Vale of Glamorgan council and within the area of South Glamorgan county council, respectively.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Welsh Development Agency is building 423 factories, including five bespoke units, and the Development Board for Rural Wales is building 32 factories. In the area of South Glamorgan county council the WDA has 40 factories under construction of which 13 are within the Vale of Glamorgan district. Details of private sector building are not readily available.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that the extent of that ambitious programme is appreciated? Is he satisfied that, in view of the size of the programme, the Welsh Development Agency will not be hampered by a lack of suitable staff in certain categories?

Mr. Roberts: I am not aware of difficulties of the type that my hon. Friend has mentioned. Certainly no underspend is anticipated, either on the special programme for Port Talbot and Llanwern or on factory building generally. Staffing is a matter for the authority.

Mr. Joan Evans: Despite the fact that large numbers of factories have been vacated because of the closure of firms, will the Government continue their policy of building new advance factories so that when the economic upturn comes manufacturers will be attracted to the area to provide the right jobs?

Mr. Roberts: Top priority is being given now to finding tenants for the massive 4 million sq. ft. of Government factory space that is already available, under construction or planned throughout Wales. Despite the recession, 131 advance factories were let in Wales last year—almost equal to the previous year's record level.

Mr. Best: While I welcome the amount of advance factory building in Wales, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that serious consideration must be given by the Welsh Development Agency to expanding its facilities in the investment and loans sphere so that it can play a full part—together with the other welcome measures that were introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget—in assisting small businesses in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the agency and its officers will note the helpful remarks of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister contact the Welsh Development Agency and investigate whether there is any

way of speeding up the letting of factories? Is he aware that last week I received complaints about the slowness of letting, which concerns industrialists?

Mr. Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman has had complaints, as he suggests, I should be grateful if he would send them to me so that I may investigate them with the agency.

Housing Strategy

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the progress of the Government's housing strategy in Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: As I told the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) on 2 March, no Minister can ever be satisfied so long as there is inadequate housing anywhere in Wales. We have tried to ensure that, within the resources available, local authorities and housing associations have a sufficient allocation in 1981–82 to enable them to undertake worthwhile programmes. As those who were present last Wednesday at the Welsh Grand Committee will know, I have announced further allocations for 1981–82 totalling £7·36 million.
Special emphasis is being given to the promotion of low cost home ownership in Wales. This can go some way to meeting housing need with little or no recourse to public expenditure.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware of the report of the directors of housing in Wales to the affect that we need a threefold increase in house building totals of last year if we are to maintain the current standards of housing? Are the Government planning, by their expenditure plans, accelerated decline in the Welsh housing stock, greater homelessness and greater unemployment in our construction industry?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will know from previous answers I have given that the trend towards reduced house building was manifest under the Labour Government. In 1975, 8,336 houses were built, in 1979 there were 4,351, a drop a nearly 50 per cent. Of course, the Government are concerned about housing in Wales but housing has had to take a reduction in capital spending. The Government have, under the Housing Act, a 10-point scheme for improving houses and for enabling local authorities to increase their housing allocations through council house sales and using that money to improve properties.

Sir Raymond Gower: In view of the high proportion of persons in Wales who own the older types of houses, is my hon. Friend satisfied that, even though the improvement scheme has been upgraded, it is adequate to meet the peculiar needs of the Principality in that respect?

Mr. Roberts: I am satisfied, because when we drafted the relevant provision of the Housing Act covering improvements, particularly improvements for sale, the interests of Wales and of owners of older properties in Wales were very much in our mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Craft Industries

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage the revival of craft industries.

The Ministerfor the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): My concern as Minister for the Arts is to develop the role of the artist-craftsman, so I give a grant to the Crafts Council which supports craft activities and individual craftsmen, but neither the council nor I have any general responsibility for the craft industries.

Mr. Blackburn: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the value, commercially and culturally, of the continuance of craft industries both in urban and rural districts? Will he give the House an assurance that a more positive role will be played by those industries, because they are part of our priceless heritage?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of support is given to the Crafts Council, significantly more than in the past. I am glad that it has a small exhibition gallery, which it plans to enlarge, and I hope that that will be of great value to individual craftsmen.

Mr. Faulds: Is it not regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State rejected on 4 March my suggestion that he should launch an initiative to encourage the training of school leavers in the traditional crafts, and the more so because he gave as his ground the reason that market forces would work in this area? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the suggestion a little more sympathetically than did his right hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Channon: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend and not for me.

Provincial Museums

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what future support he plans for provincial museums.

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of ways of developing the role of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries to make the best use of available resources for museums.

Mr. Channon: In the past the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries has made an important contribution to the welfare of provincial museums. I am now considering how best this can be continued and improved. As I told the House in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) on 2 March, I hope to make a statement later in the year.

Mr. Jessel: While we all recognise the value and importance of provincial museums, what can be done, in view of the current shortage of money, to improve the efficiency of their administration?

Mr. Channon: There has been a whole number of suggestions, of which my hon. Friend will be aware, some of which were canvassed in the Drew report last year. Jam studying all those suggestions in the hope that we can make progress and that I shall be able to make a statement to the House in the not too distant future.

Mr. Hooson: When carrying out that study, will my right hon. Friend also look at the possibility of slightly more selective expenditure in support of regional museums?

Mr. Channon: I shall look at that, but I suspect that there are many minefields along that route. Everyone thinks that his own local museum is the best.

Mr. Blackburn: Hear, hear.

Mr. Channon: I had better not be too selective.

Mr. Faulds: Is it not a fact that £400,000 was underspent by provincial museums in 1979–80 because of the inflexibility of the rules and the absence of any established procedure for appeal to the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal consideration to that important problem, because he might bring about a remedy?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. If he is talking about purchases by purchase grants administered by the V and A and the Science museum, there is a good use for those funds. Of course, I am looking at that issue in my consideration of all these matters.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend not pay too much attention to the injunction of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson)? Will he accept that in museums and arts a little money goes a very long way and that museums are among our foremost tourist attractions? What facilities has my right hon. Friend for arguing priorites with his colleagues in the Cabinet and elsewhere, bearing in mind that in my constituency alone one stretch of motorway will cost almost as much as the entire Arts Council budget for a year?

Mr. Channon: I have the same facilities as any of my colleagues. One of the things that helps me in fighting for the arts is the robust support of my hon. Friend and many other colleagues. I am sure that, with their assistance, I shall be able to continue my support for the arts. I agree with my hon. Friend that local museums are among our most precious assets and I shall do what I can to help them.

The Arts

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what visits he has made or plans to make to the regions in connection with his responsibilities in relation to the arts and the national heritage.

Mr. Channon: I have recently visited Southampton and Merseyside and have so far about 20 engagements to all parts of the country planned for the next few months. I shall write to my hon. Friend giving details.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing such a robust programme. Will he ensure that the regions have a fair share of the resources allocated to the arts and that such resources are not unfairly allocated to London and the South-East?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is encouraging that the Arts Council allocates about two-thirds of its grant to activities outside London. That is different from the situation that existed 10 or 20 years ago and is an encouraging trend.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he was extremely welcome in Southampton earlier this month? Will he bear in mind, on his regional trips, that there would be much merit in linking support for the arts with the work of local tourist boards, because, as he will understand from earlier supplementary questions, many of us feel that the two go together?

Mr. Channon: I have had a meeting with the English Tourist Board today and we discussed a number of ways in which we could jointly help. I shall keep my hon. Friend's point of view in mind. I found my visit to Southampton most helpful, because it it a good authority for helping the arts. I wish that others were as good.

Mr. Freud: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in France and West Germany the budgets for sales and promotion of the arts come from outside the arts councils there? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however excellent and professional may be the quality of the arts, unless they can be properly sold and promoted there is not much point in providing money for them?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I go as far as that, but it is important that they should be sold and promoted correctly. That is one point which the ETB made to me. There is a lot to be said for that, particularly as regards local museums. I accept a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Arts Council

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will ask the chairman of the Arts Council to include in his annual report an account of the volume and nature of the complaints received each year and any action taken in consequence.

Mr. Channon: It is for the Arts Council to determine the contents of its annual report but I shall naturally pass on to the chairman my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Neubert: As the Home Secretary imposes such a condition on the BBC and the IBA, would it not be entirely appropriate for a similar condition to be put on the Arts Council which, in many ways, plays a similar role? Would that not be a salutary reminder of its obligations to the wider public, which pays through its rates and taxes for Arts Council grant-aided activities, compared with the much smaller numbers who directly benefit from State support of the arts?

Mr. Channon: A great number of people, far more than the House may realise, benefit from State support for the arts, through museums, music, theatre, drama, pictures and all sorts of activities. However, I am not unsympathetic to my hon. Friend's suggestion, which has a great deal of good sense in it.

Mr. Faulds: Perhaps there is some merit in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) and perhaps that matter should be considered, but, since there appears to be a general campaign of vilification against the Arts Council, primarily by the supposed quality

papers, will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity of standing up for the Arts Council and explaining that it is the best way of organising the arm's-length funding of arts activities throughout the country?

Mr. Channon: I certainly believe it to be the best way, and that has been the view of all my predecessors from both parties. The public gets extremely good value for money, in the variety of ways that we have been discussing, from support for the arts.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of the Arts Council about entirely inappropriate expenditure and will he take on hoard the suggestion that the Arts Council may have given some money towards a Marxist bookshop in Mid-Warwickshire?

Mr. Channon: I do not know about that case. If my hon. Friend gives me details I shall take up the matter. I reiterate that there will be cases at the margin that may give rise to legitimate concern. I understand my hon. Friend's feeling. In general, however, people get very good value for money. The amount of interest and growth of activity in the arts over the last few years has been remarkable.

The Arts

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he employs in allocating Government assistance to the arts between the different art forms which seek support.

Mr. Channon: My responsibilities include making allocations to the national museums and galleries and the British Library and also to the various organisations that support the different forms of the living arts, the Arts Council, the Crafts Council and the British Film Institute. All these bodies submit annual budgets which are discussed on the basis of their needs. In case of the latter group of bodies, it is its responsibility to consider its own grants to individual claimants.

Mr. van Straubenzee: If my right hon. Friend, in the course of policy development, decides to make a change in some of those allocations, will he bear in mind that many activities require much planning in advance and that abrupt changes would be unhelpful? I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the individual allocations of the Arts Council. Is there not possibly a lesson that could be learnt, not about decisions but about the abruptness with which decisions are implemented?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend has a good point. The chairman of the Arts Council, when he wrote to me recently, said that there may have been cases where the policy of informing people in advance had not been adequately implemented and that he would ensure that it did not recur.

Mr. Cormack: May I reinforce the point that has been made? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Royal Shakespeare Company is experiencing great difficulty because it cannot plan more than a year ahead? It is impossible for our great national companies to operate successfully unless they cart plan ahead for a longer period than that.

Mr. Channon: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. There are a great many difficulties. The extent of the grant is not known until a quite late date. I shall consider the valid point that has been made.

Civil Service (Dispute)

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil) (by private notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about the effect of the threatened Civil Service strike.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): About three-quarters of the normal tax revenues are currently being received by the Exchequer. There is no risk to overall economic management, as the money owed to the Government will eventually be paid over. At most there will be a short-term increase in the money supply, which will subsequently be corrected. The main effect at the moment is inconvenience to the public. But there would be serious damage to the prospects for a further reduction in inflation if the Government conceded an excessive pay settlement.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist the temptation that Governments often feel to keep such difficult matters under wraps and, instead, take the public into their confidence so far as possible and certainly keep the House informed? Does he agree that persistence by those who are public servants and widely respected in harassing those whom they should be serving is likely to be counter-productive and to diminish sympathy and, indeed, call attention to the special advantages that they enjoy, which are not widely shared?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my right hon. Friend on both points. I see no reason why the public should not be kept informed on what is a matter of public concern and interest. I also agree with him that actions that have the effect of delaying people at the ports and interfering with immigration procedures, to name but two examples, cannot assist the reputation of public servants who have an important and valuable duty to do.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House how much revenue is actually being withheld and how much he estimates the borrowing requirement will increase as a result of this action? What effect will it have in numerical terms, so far as he can estimate, on the money supply? What damage will be caused to an already rather injured medium-term financial strategy?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also say how he intends to carry out the extra borrowing that may be required? Will it be done through Treasury bills or the sale of gilts? From a Government who are always lecturing industry on how to behave—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is an important point. From a Government who are always lecturing industry on how to behave, one of the worst aspects of the situation is that an employer should not give his employees—civil servants in this case—the feeling that they are disliked by the employer. This is an important matter to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to return.

Mr. Brittan: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question of the Government's disliking their employees. A serious dispute has arisen. That is a different matter. With regard to the more factual questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked, the position is that the deterioration in the central Government borrowing requirement due to the strike is of the order of £½ billion to £¾ billion.
With regard to the financial effects, there has been no extra borrowing of any significant size. The Government were planning to borrow to the extent required in any event, at the moment. There will have been a very temporary increase in the money supply, the extent of which cannot be quantified at the moment, but it will be small. It will, on the other hand, be correspondingly reduced when the money comes in. I see no reason why it should have any effect whatever on the medium-term financial strategy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I propose to call two more hon. Members from either side.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Civil Service employees have had a 50 per cent. pay increase over the past two years? Is he aware that thousands of my constituents would be grateful for such an increase, as, indeed, would the constituents of all hon. Members? Does he not think that in the circumstances it is time that the civil servants showed some responsibility?

Mr. Brittan: I very much hope that those involved in the dispute will listen to what hon. Members say. My hon. Friend rightly says that the average increase over the past two years has been 50 per cent.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so convinced that civil servants have been given unduly favoured treatment in pay, why has he suspended the pay research system? Will he say what steps the Government, as the employer, are taking in relation to Inland Revenue staff today and in the course of this week, or what proposals they have? Does he not agree that the Government's handling of the dispute is highly likely to lead to the most serious situation between employers and employees that the Civil Service has ever seen?

Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's third point. On the second point, staff in local collection offices are refusing to bank cheques that they have received. The first stage of the temporary relief from duty process has started today in some local collection offices.
It would be a mistake to think that pay research has always been implemented automatically by Governments of either party. It has happened in only a minority of cases. With regard to the move forward, these are matters essentially for my noble Friend the Lord President. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear last week that we want to find a system that will be genuinely acceptable.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that in common, I suspect, with other hon. Members I have received representations at the weekend from responsible Civil Service constituents expressing the view that the offer, in cash terms, is very reasonable, particularly given the economic state of the nation? They are, however, interested in and concerned about the very mechanics mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend in his last answer—mechanics for the future. Will he consider, in concert with his noble Friend, giving greater publicity to the words that he has spoken and that Ministers have spoken about their hopes for the future in that regard?

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity that this question gives to do what my hon. Friend says. We want to reach agreement on an orderly and agreed way forward. I should like to take the opportunity to confirm that many people in the Civil Service take the view that my hon. Friend has reported. Many are working in a perfectly ordinary, orderly and responsible manner.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the Minister give an assurance that cases raised by hon. Members dealing with hardship caused by the industrial dispute will be dealt with expeditiously by his Department?

Mr. Brittan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any such cases will be considered expeditiously.

European Community (Fisheries Ministers' Meeting)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the EEC Council of Fisheries Ministers on 27 March, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department, and myself.
As the House will know, this meeting was called following the discussions on fish at the European Council at the beginning of last week. However, it quickly became apparent that one delegation was not able to negotiate on the crucial question of access and that therefore there was no possibility of agreement on a comprehensive, revised common fisheries policy. In these circumstances, the President decided that it would be wrong to prolong the meeting, which ended shortly after lunch. Ministers from all member countries committed their Governments to make every endeavour to reach overall agreement this spring, and invited the Presidency to reconvene the Council as soon as the necessary preparations allowed.
The Government consider that it is vital to retain the strength of the British fishing industry. It will be known that for this purpose during the past year the Government have already provided £37 million worth of aid to the industry, and it was envisaged originally that this aid was for the period ending on 31 March.
The House will know that the Government made the decision to bring forward the review of the financial position of the industry, and the results of this review show quite clearly that markets are weak and that increasing costs and continuing uncertainty are hitting the fleet hard.
The Government have therefore decided to make further aid available to the industry to help it through the continuing uncertainty and difficulty. Twenty-five million pounds will be made available for distribution through a scheme on broadly similar lines to the fishing vessel temporary support scheme introduced last August.
By taking this action the Government will therefore again have confirmed their determination to see that the British fishing industry continues to make an important contribution to our economy and continues in readiness for taking full advantage of a common fishing policy when negotiations are completed.

Mr. Roy Mason: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, while recognising that the French have been the real culprits in blocking progress in the common fisheries policy talks, may I take it that there will be no progress at all until after the French presidential elections and that we shall have no more meetings of the Council of Fisheries Ministers for at least six weeks?
Secondly, when the Canadian cod deal with the Germans is eventually agreed, what prospects are there for United Kingdom fishermen getting fishing rights in Canadian waters?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clear up the criticism being levelled at his Minister of State that the hon. Gentleman has already sacrificed our demand for the 12 to 50-mile dominant preference zone?
Turning to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement dealing with aid, I am sure that the House and


the industry will be most grateful. Without this financial assistance, all sectors of the industry—the deep-sea, middle-distance and inshore fleets—were facing widespread collapse. Many vessel owners are already up to their necks in debt, and the Minister's announcement will stave off bankruptcy. But can he say how long this aid is supposed to last, and will it go direct to the vessel owners, according to the sizes of vessels?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to finance the restructuring of the British fishing fleet and not keep waiting for the eventual outcome of the common fisheries policy talks? Our competitors are already doing it—the Germans are a case in point—and once more we are slipping behind. If a deal is eventually agreed, those countries that have restructured will be best able to take advantage of it.

Mr. Walker: Obviously I cannot speak on behalf of the French Government and say when they will be prepared to discuss the detailed questions of access. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, last week I had a bilateral meeting with the French Minister and a great deal of time was spent showing him the details of our requirements in terms of access. He has promised to consider carefully the arguments that we put to him. However, the timing of the next meeting must rest, quite rightly, with the Dutch President of the Council, who is anxious to see that that meeting takes place as quickly as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about the ability of British fishermen to fish in Canadian waters. I remind him that the amount of fishing that Britain did in Canadian waters when the Government of which he was a member were responsible was very small. Alas, in one year when there was a quota the British fishing industry caught only half the quota allocated to it. The degree to which we can make demands on what is available in Canadian waters reflects somewhat our past performance in that respect.
As for the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department, I may say that I know of no person on either side of this House who more has the confidence of the fishing industry than my hon. Friend. There is nothing that he or I said in the fishing negotiations that has not been said in very close association with and with the understanding of the leaders of the fishing industry. That will continue to be the case until, finally, we obtain a satisfactory settlement to these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the method of payment of the proposed aid, and whether it would go to the proprietors as well as to the crews, and so on. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the nature of the relationship between the proprietorship of a boat and its crew varies from one section of the industry to another. However, in all sections of the industry the very close association between management, proprietorship and crews is such that the aid that we are giving in this form will be of benefit to the continuation of the industry, to the continuation, therefore, of jobs, and to the continuation of appropriate rewards to all the crews concerned.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept from my own fishermen the very warm welcome that they give to the new aid that has been promised, which itself shows the understanding of my right hon. Friend of the problems facing the industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for the continued and very robust stand that he and the

Minister of State have taken during these fishing negotiations and of the welcome that the industry will give to the statement just made by my right hon. Friend about the continued close links that he intends to have with the industry throughout all future negotiations? I hope that that will be the case.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The calculation of the degree of aid that we are providing on this occasion, which by any previous standards is very substantial, has been done on the basis of a joint assessment that we have made with the industry itself of the financial problems of the industry. I think that we can claim that the relationship between my own Department and the industry, and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the industry, is very close and is working well to the benefit of the industry as a whole.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity afforded by the obduracy of the other members of the Council to regain a negotiating stance of an exclusive 12-mile zone and dominant preference up to 50 miles, which is approved by the whole of this House? Is he aware that, perhaps unintentionally, the apparent prevarication on that subject last week by the Prime Minister and this afternoon by him arouses anxieties on the part of fishermen?

Mr. Walker: They are political anxieties expressed by those who have no great enthusiasm for a common fisheries policy. The negotiating relationship on all matters of access between the industry and the Government is one on which we have total agreement. Every negotiating position that we have taken on access, and the position that we have put to the Council of Ministers and to the Commission, has been agreed with the fishing industry.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I want first to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and his Minister of State and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the very firm line that they took to stand still and not allow the French make them come to terms on a common fisheries policy under duress. My constituency, which is one of the largest fishing constituencies, welcomes warmly this aid to the fishing industry. It is one more example of the Government's confidence in the fishing industry. In view of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), will my right hon. Friend say how much aid has been given by this Government compared with what was given by the last Government?

Mr. Walker: In terms of the position of the industry as a whole, obviously we hope in the coming months to reach a common fisheries policy that will be the policy for the rest of this century and that will provide immense opportunities for the British fishing industry. Therefore, it is the Government's view that it is important to retain the strength of our industry if it is to take full advantage of that situation when it occurs.
The volume of aid is roughly four times what was given in most years of the previous Government and is the volume of aid that we have calculated to be necessary to sustain the fishing fleet in a viable position, so that it can take advantage of the commom fisheries policy.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the German claim that fisheries were included as part of the package covering the rebate of the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC? The British version is that fisheries is an entirely separate issue. Which version is correct? Will the right hon. Gentleman now state the minimum requirement that the Government would regard as absolutely essential in order to safeguard the rights of our fishermen in any negotiations?

Mr. Walker: I repeat that one cannot do better than to work with the industry in order to decide a sensible position on every specific stock. It is meaningless to decide on an overall general figure without deciding what stocks are of interest to Scottish fishermen. That is what we have done.
The United Kingdom shares the German Government's disappointment about agreement last May. In May, the Heads of Government hoped that a number of issues, including fishing, would be settled by the end of 1980. The British Government warmly welcomed that declaration. They share the disappointment that, not due to any act of ours but because of the acts of others, we did not reach agreement on a common fisheries policy by the end of December.

Sir David Price: Having spent part of the weekend with the fishermen in my constituency, I assure my right hon. Friend that the South Coast fishermen very much support his robust attitude. Is he aware that they would rather have no common fisheries policy than one that sold out our inshore waters to the French, although they would prefer one if it could be obtained on reasonable terms?

Mr. Walker: It is in the interests of all fishermenn to have a common fisheries policy, because the conservation policies that can be operated only on a European basis are essential to the future build-up of stocks. They benefit our fishermen more than any other fishermen in Europe, because we have the largest fishing industry in Europe. Therefore, if we can obtain an arrangement that is satisfactory to our fishing industry it will be to the long-term advantage of all the fishermen.

Mr. James Johnson: The Minister indicated that there can be no settlement before June, at the best. Does that mean that British vessels will be left to wallow for the coming three or four months? Owners in Hull are selling their boats anywhere. In fact, British United Trawlers has put its last 10 big boats on the market. Will something be done in June or July? Is the right hon. Gentleman as optimistic as he was on the last occasion when he reported to the House?

Mr. Walker: I have not stated that June will be the earliest date. I have said that, quite rightly, the timing of the next meeting must be left to the Presidency, following soundings with the various member countries. On Friday, we urged that the meeting should be held as speedily as possible, when the Presidency judges that it has a considerable chance of success. At the Council of Ministers' meeting, the French Minister stated quite openly that he wanted carefully to consider the access position, and said that he was not willing to negotiate on it at that time. It is not only to the benefit of British fishermen to have a common fisheries agreement; it is also in the interests of French fishermen. I hope that the French

Government share that viewpoint. If they do, there is no reason why, in the coming months, we should not reach a sensible agreement.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British fishermen do not like being a charge of the public purse, even though that is necessary in view of the present crisis? Will he say something about the time scale, and the way in which the welcome aid that he has announced will be distributed? Will he confirm that in December both French and British fishermen appeared to believe that a deal was possible, and that it came as a surprise that one was not completed?

Mr. Walker: It is true that that was the feeling of British and French fishermen in December. Indeed, at the December meeting all the other members of the Council of Ministers considered that we were near to reaching agreement.
The money will be distributed quickly, and the method will be similar to the one that was used last August. Although there are detailed snags, it is a system that, in the main, is welcomed by the industry. It is speedy and effective.

Mr. David Alton: I offer my support for what the Minister has achieved so far. However, on conservation, how serious has the depletion of our fishing resources become?

Mr. Walker: There has been some check on depletion in recent years. There is evidence that vital stocks, such as the herring stock, are beginning to build up. The tragedy is that once a stock has been destroyed and over-fished it takes many years to build it up again. If one were to adopt a system of free fishing everywhere I have no doubt that many stocks would quickly and substantially deteriorate.

Mr. Peter Fraser: In view of the carping remarks made by Opposition Members, I assure my right hon. Friend that the leaders of the Scottish fishing fleets are appreciative of the fact that he has taken them along with every decision that has been made at each stage of the Brussels negotiations. Is he aware that the increased amount of aid that has been made available to the fishing fleets is not the only matter of importance? It is also important that the aid should be distributed in a way that is sensitive, and truly responds to the needs of fleets of all sizes.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general remarks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have worked closely with the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry. Alas, there is no perfect method of distributing the aid. If it is done according to the size of ship, it adversely affects boats with different engine sizes. If it is done according to the size of the crew, it has an adverse affect on others. We have therefore concluded that the system used last August was broadly correct, and it was welcomed by most sections of the industry. It is also a speedy method of getting the financial aid to those who require it.

Mr. Joan Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not be party to a package deal to sell out the fishing industry in order to obtain our EEC rebate in the future? As the CAP has worked to the disadvantage of British farmers, consumers


and taxpayers, will he resist a common fisheries policy that provides the fish around our shores for the fishing vessels of our European competitors?

Mr. Walker: Obviously we have a strong case for obtaining as much fish as we possibly can for a vital and important industry. However, on the question of who the fish belong to, some people argue that the breeding grounds, as opposed to other issues, are equally important. It is not a clear, uncomplicated decision. I confirm that I shall be no party to a package that sells out the fishing industry, and I also confirm that no one in the Government would be party to such a measure.

Mr Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Government will not accept unrestricted access in 1982 if we do not achieve a common fisheries policy this year? In view of its relevance to the Southend fishing industry, is it my right hon. Friend's aim to phase out historic rights within 12 miles, so that eventually we shall have a 12-miles exclusive zone?

Mr. Walker: Detailed points on historic rights are matters on which we are in close liaison with the industry. The industry recognises the important factors involved for the fishing industries of all countries in measuring the degree of historic rights and their importance to our industry. If we achieve agreement on a disappearance or phasing out of historic rights, it will be an improvement on anything which has existed up to the present time. I am sure that, as always, my hon. Friend will strongly welcome that.
My hon. Friend asked what would happen if there were no agreement by December 1982. The Government believe that it would then be vital, as mentioned in article 103 of the Treaty, for the Commission to present a future programme covering a common fisheries policy in Europe. In the absence of any agreement on such a programme, there is a degree of legal uncertainty about what the position would be.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been rising as well as the Opposition Front Bench spokesman before moving on to the Supply day business.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has the Minister noticed the considerable support that he has received from both sides of the House and from representatives of the industry for his robust policy? Will he confirm, however, that there is only one possible interpretation of his earlier answers, namely, that both he and the industry have departed from the previously stated principle of a dominant preference between 12 and 50 miles? If so, how does he reconcile that with his so-called robust attitude?

Mr. Walker: Everything that I have put forward has had the agreement of the industry. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the industry for not knowing as much about fishing as the hon Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) let him do so.

Mr. Spearing: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "the industry"?

Mr. Tony Marlow: Since the industry's problems arise to a large extent from the

European Community, will my right hon. friend seek to get the £25 million that this policy will cost as a partial rebate for the massive £705 million net that we put into the Community last year, rather than visit the cost on the hard-pressed taxpayer? After all, we are a Government who seek to cut public expenditure. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is the most persuasive person in being able to get the money back.

Mr. Walker: I suggest that my hon. Friend studies the history of the fishing industry. If he does, he will find that the main reason for the difficulty that faces our long-distance fleet and the industry generally has nothing to do with the Common Market. It is related to the loss of access to Icelandic waters. If my hon. Friend wants to use that argument, therefore, perhaps he will try to get some money out of Iceland.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has established beyond doubt his determination to uphold the interests of the British fishing industry against French demands for access that is no doubt as traditional and as important to them as was our access to Icelandic waters? Will he beware, however, of letting himself be boxed in by the natural enthusiasm of the spokesmen for the fishing industry, leaving himself no room for manoeuvre?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I have an immense respect for the manner in which the fishing industry has assisted me and collaborated with me in the negotiations. A common factor among the leaders of the fishing industry is a genuine understanding and sympathy for fishermen of other countries. Probably because they share the same dangers and hardships at sea, there is a genuine regard for other fishing communities throughout the Community. I have no complaints about the manner in which the leadership of the fishing industry has worked in close collaboration with the Government during these difficult and complex negotiations.

Mr. Toby Jessel: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the interests of consumers of fish? Practically all the questions put to him have reflected the interests of the fishing industry, and he has constantly stressed the needs of the industry. Does he agree that the interests of those who eat fish are at least equally important? Will he explain how recent events and the stand that he has taken have affected the consumers' interests?

Mr. Walker: There was a time when British consumers devoured large quantities of herring at low prices because they were in plentiful supply and were caught in large quantities by British fishermen. A lack of conservation measures, over-fishing, and lack of coherent policing in European waters have meant the disappearance of that stock for the consumer. It is therefore very much in the interests of consumers that there should be a viable and successful fishing industry, seeking to catch increasing stocks.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I do not want in any way to detract from the Minister's achievement in securing this substantial additional tranche of temporary financial aid for the industry. May I suggest to him, however, that the last time aid was given in this form there was concern over the method of payment? It was concentrated on the vessel owners, with working


fishermen, including share fishermen, receiving no direct benefit. Will some of this money go directly to fishermen who do not own vessels?

Mr. Walker: Different sections of the industry and different proprietors will be in relatively different positions. Obviously, if, but for this aid, a proprietor may go out of business, and he uses the aid to pay his capital and interest payments and stay in business, that will be in the interests of the crew. My experience of the industry is that the relationship between crews, managers and proprietors is, by the nature of the industry, very close. The manner in which the aid is distributed will vary according to different needs. It would be wrong for the Government to specify a method of distribution between capital and interest repayments and meeting overheads, and the genuine requirements of the crews. I believe, however, that in the industry as a whole there is a good relationship between managers and crews.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Unemployment (Midlands)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. John Sever: We welcome this opportunity to discuss unemployment in the Midlands. If they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. and hon. Friends will, I am sure, wish to pursue the question of the difficulties that they are experiencing in their constituencies and to outline the difficulties experienced by working people in the Midlands. Throughout the towns and cities in our region we see the plague of unemployment raging through the lives of countless thousands of families, bringing distress and unhappiness on a scale undreamt of in our wildest nightmares in May 1979. The wildest nightmare in that month, of course, was the arrival of the present Administration.
Arguably, this Administration is the most doctrinaire and reactionary in modern British politics. Certainly, for many of us who have grown into politics in recent times it is the most doctrinaire Government that we have ever seen. The Department of Employment's figures released on 24 March show that the national unemployment level is now a shade below 2·5 million. If the number unemployed but not yet registered as such could be quantified, I believe that that figure would be well over 3 million. It would be difficult for the Minister to argue against that.
The figure for the East and West Midlands together is now 428,700. In May 1979 it was 188,600. The current figure is most alarming. Will the Minister tell us today what he and his Department are able to do to reduce it? I hope that the debate will centre around the Government's proposals for relieving the misery facing thousands of Midlands families.
We on the Labour Benches believed in May 1979 that the figure of just under 200,000 was unacceptable. Today, twice that number are out of work. The current level of unemployment is truly staggering, and I fear that it will increase. The Government are entitled to ask why that should be so. Many of us believe that the reasons for that fear are obvious, but I point to ample evidence from our Midlands experience to support the contention.
First, hundreds of factories are working short-time. Every employee who is working within such an enterprise feels the threat that his firm may not weather the economic blizzard that has settled over those enterprises, and that the short-time working will in time develop to no-time working. Secondly, grossly unfair foreign competition, the import of cheap and often Government-subsidised goods, the high cost of borrowing, and the competition restrictions imposed by the high value of sterling will mean further reductions in the already thin order books of those firms.
All the business sectors in the Midlands, such as enginering—those firms known colloquially in the Midlands as the metal bashing businesses—motor cars, components and accessories, carpets, textiles, footwear and leather are experiencing extreme difficulties. I wonder how many of the good electors of Grantham, in the East Midlands, are now happy with their decision to support the election to high office of one of their daughters, who is now responsible for the loss of so many of their jobs and livelihoods.
The list of substantial Midland businesses with redundancies totalling more than 100 recorded from reports received by the Birmingham chamber of commerce reads like a national "Who's Who" of British industry—or a list of who is going next in British industry.
In January 1980, the British Steel Corporation subsidiary, Prothero of Wednesbury, sent 600 workers to the dole queue. GKN, Sankey at Wolverhampton sent 139 to the dole queue. In February, BSR at Cradley Heath made 1,200 workers redundant. Patent Shaft steelworks, at West Bromwich, made 1,500 workers redundant. I know from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) that those jobs are lost and gone for ever.
In March 1980 there was more bad news from GKN, Sankey at Bilston, where 136 workers were made redundant. In the same month there was further bad news of proposed redundancies of about 12,000 during 1980 from British Leyland. In April, Triplex of Birmingham announced 200 redundancies. In May 1980 there was yet more bad news from GKN, Sankey at Telford, where 600 were declared redundant, with another 300 at Bilston.
Midland Motor Cylinders at Smethwick announced 330 redundancies. In June the year was half over, but the situation was no better. Lucas Electrical announced 3,000 redundancies at various sites in the Midlands. Birmetals at Quinton announced 900 redundancies. BSR at Old Hill announced 600 redundancies, and there was a further startling announcement from GKN that 2,000 more jobs were to go.
In July, Tube Investments at Wednesfield announced 350 redundancies. In August, Triumph (BL) at Canley announced 1,600 redundancies. In September, Cadbury-Schweppes at Bournville announced that 3,000 jobs were to go in the next four years. T.I. Raleigh at Handsworth, Birmingham made 220 redundancies. In October 1980, guess who—GKN, Sankey at Wolverhampton made 930 workers redundant.
In November, Talbot Cars at the Stoke plant in Coventry, made 900 redundancies. In December, 500 Christmas-present redundancy notices were issued at GKN Forgings, Bromsgrove and 200 at Darlaston. Dunlop at Erdington, in Birmingham, made 1,000 workers redundant.
In January 1981, it was a happy new year for 450 workers at GKN, Automotive Fasteners in Birmingham. In February, GKN said that there would be no further redundancies after 1,200 further redundancies at various sites. Talbot Cars at Ryton, in Coventry announced 525 redundancies. Recently, Ansells Brewery, in Birmingham—a household name in the City and the Midlands—announced 600 redundancies.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. He must know that bad industrial relations led to the Ansells redundancies.

Mr. Sever: I am aware that the future of that company is in jeopardy because of the management's total inability to give working people a fair deal to which they can respond. As a result of that inability, 600 people are on their way to the dole queue.
The question that immediately springs to my mind is: when will GKN decide that enough redundancies have been forced upon it by the Tory Government through their policies and that it will put no further funds into the Tory Party's coffers? Already the writing is writ large on the wall of the Conservative Party Central Office that no more money will come as the jobs go out the back door of the factories.
The list of redundancies and closures in the Midlands is endless. I do not propose to take up the time of the House further in listing the long catalogue.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I wish that he would go on with his litany of disasters. He has missed out from my constituency Chance Brothers, Mansill Booth's, Avery's, Dartmouth Autocasting, and other firms that have declared hundreds of redundancies as a result of the Government's policies. I hope that my colleague will be kind enough to continue with that litany of disasters.

Mr. Sever: My hon. Friend tempts me. My list was typed and it contained some of the companies to which my hon. Friend refers. However, to try to ease the agony of Ministers I decided to take out some of the names. The redundancies and closures to which my hon. Friend refers reflect the distress in his constituency and in others. He presses me to continue with the list, but it is better that I should try to prise from Minsters their ideas for trying to resolve some of the disastrous problems that face working people in the Midlands.
The number engaged in short-time working is also a fearful problem. In addition to all the redundancies that I could have listed this afternoon, short-time working is affecting the livelihoods and standards of living of many more thousands of people. In the week ending 17 January this year, 594,000 operatives in manufacturing industries in Great Britain were on short-time. Many of the operatives work in the Midlands.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Ministry's figures are appallingly defective? They include only short-time working figures that are reported to the Department, generally because people are after temporary employment supplement. Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas such as Leicester, where unemployment is already over 10 per cent., about 15 per cent. of the work force is working short-time? That figure is not available from the Government because it can only be estimated.

Mr. Sever: I am happy to confirm that. Many people are on short time but do not register. I accept that Ministers might have difficulty in dealing with that problem, because it is difficult to quantify the numbers involved. However, hundreds of thousands of families in the Midlands are affected. Their incomes have been reduced savagely and their standard of living is far below that


which the Prime Minister said it would be after two years of her Government. The short-time working figure compares with a total of 502,000 on short-time working in the week ending 13 December 1980.
I now turn to the situation in Coventry. I should like to place on record the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House who will share my sadness at not seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) here today as he is unwell. Many of us have listened with enthusiasm and high regard to what my hon. Friend has said in similar debates. Hon. Members will miss his contribution.
Coventry has long been regarded as healthy. It has been regarded as one of Western Europe's most prosperous cities. Today the story is different. Coventry is also subject to Government gloom. Coventry has suffered, as has the rest of the Midlands, from the prophets of monetarism and from the dogmas pursued by the present Government.
Factories that once boasted high production levels of goods readily saleable around the world are now empty. They echo only to the footsteps of property developers and auctioneers who are either trying to sell the space for warehousing or storage or to sell machinery for export or scrap. That is desperate and dangerous. It is destroying the whole fabric of the economy of that great city.
When will the Government realise that they are presiding over the assassination of industry in the Midlands and the destruction of the hopes and dreams of countless thousands of families, because of their inability to provide work. I hope that the Minister can tell us today when the long-promised upturn and consequent improvement in the lot of Midlands workers will take place.
Within a few hundred yards of the famous Matthew Boulton Soho foundry—the heart of the West Midlands industrial revolution—is the Soho Road area, in my constituency. The general neighbourhood is largely where ethnic minorities live. They feel justifiably disadvantaged for a range of reasons, including poor housing, lack of social provision, and inadequate services of all kinds. As a result, they are at a social disadvantage so pronounced that now every square inch of that district and the whole of my constituency is within the core area of Birmingham's inner city partnership area. Now, in addition to that social disadvantage, racial minorities are finding it extremely difficult to find work. They blame, the Government, as we do, for a lack of effective policies on employment and job opportunities.
The Secretary of State would be well advised to reconsider the statement made as long ago as 1977 in the report to the OECD by a group of independent experts, under the chairmanship of Paul MacCracken. The report was entitled
Towards Full Employment and Price Stability".
It said:
The fact that present high levels of unemployment have not caused more social and political unrest is a tribute to the effectiveness of today's systems of income maintenance and social security. But there can be no complacency about the consequences of prolonged unemployment on social, racial, religious and regional tensions and, in time, on attitudes to work and to society in general.

Mr. Faulds: Does my hon. Friend agree that the utterances of the so-called right hon. Member for Down,

South (Mr. Powell), who appears certifiable in what he now says outside the House, do not help the dangerous situation that is developing for these ethnic minorities?

Mr. Sever: Much public disquiet was expressed at the weekend by the leaders of ethnic communities, whom I was happy to meet on Sunday, about the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). What the right hon. Gentleman says does nothing whatever to improve race relations and racial tolerance and harmony, particularly in our large cities.
The MacCracken report went on:
Indeed the continuation of excessively high rates of unemployment could call into question the market-oriented economic system. It is clear, therefore, that a policy designed to minimise unemployment over the medium run cannot ignore the social and political costs being incurred in the short run.
What worries me now is that we have long since passed the short run in 1977 and are well into the medium term. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government intend to allay the fears expressed in that report and felt by the unemployed in the Midlands.
The situation becomes worse daily. I quote from a recent newspaper article, in which Mr. Brian Willis, of the chamber of commerce in Coventry, said:
The Prime Minister could so easily adjust the tappets, change the plugs of our engine instead of stuffing potatoes up the exhaust and putting sugar in the petrol tank".
It is my view that Mr. Willis has got it nearly right, but not quite right. I believe that the right hon. Lady has pinched the engine.
In the same article, Mr. Scott Glover, chairman of the large company section of the chamber of commerce and director of the Coventry factories for Massey-Ferguson, is quoted as having said:
The danger is that the current economic policies of the Government are going to lead to such a collapse of the industrial base that we will reach a position from which we can never climb back".
That comes from a city that was once regarded by many in the House as probably the most prosperous in Europe.
A growing fury is felt by many of the smaller Midlands industrialists and entrepreneurs—allegedly those whom the Government wish to encourage—who feel that they have been sold out by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues. They desperately want help from the Government with the high energy costs that they have been asked to absorb. They regard high energy costs as simply a further taxation on hard-pressed small businesses. I hope that the Minister will tell us what discussions he is having with the Department of Energy to try to relieve this worry, which I know has been expressed to his right hon. Friend in a number of representations from the Midlands and elsewhere.
The crippling level of interest rates has damaged production capabilities, and companies are forced to scale down their enterprises and put many long-serving and well-trained skilled workers on the dole. During the 1979 general election campaign I spoke to groups of workers in a substantial engineering and electrical manufacturing company a hundred yards from my front door. Strangely enough, some of those workers did not want to listen to me when I told them that a vote for a Thatcher-led Administration would lead them eventually to the dole queue. I wonder how many of the workers who doubted what I said at that time feel about being out of work, particularly when they see the "For Sale" notice that is now stuck on the side wall of that factory.
It is the same story in companies, both large and small, throughout the country, but it is particularly true of businesses in the Midlands. The jobs that have now gone are likely to have gone forever throughout the region. Mr. Reg Parkes, vice-chairman of the regional CBI and chairman of the Brockhouse Group—one of the most substantial enterprises in the Midlands—is quoted as saying, a few days ago, that:
The Government had distorted competition and weakened basic industries so much that many would not survive".
There we find a leader of organised management in the West Midlands complaining that the policies of the Government, which doubtless many of his friends in industry helped into office, have left industry in such a state that it is doubtful whether many of them will survive.
Mr. Parkes is quoted as saying:
The Midlands has lost great chunks of industry most of which are lost for ever, we have over two hundred and seventy thousand unemployed. Another two hundred and thirty five thousand are on short-time working".
He went on:
Successive Governments have directed industry out of the Midlands to designated depressed areas, assisted areas, and like so that although we have bounced back after each recession it has always been at a lower level".
Moreover, it takes a longer time.
With the constant body blows that the Government have inflicted upon industry, job opportunities for many thousands of young people seeking to enter industry will not be there. The Government's duty is clear. They must give greater support to financing apprenticeship training and must encourage such help through the engineering industry training board and other industrial training boards. Midlands TUC leaders, in their recent report on the crisis, called for a campaign for a new policy to support the Midlands, which is still not rated for financial assistance.
Many of us on the Opposition Benches believe that the problems of the Midlands cannot be solved by throwing money at the area. We also believe that there is an immediate need for much extra financial help to be given to the Midlands, because that is where the growth and the long-sought-after upturn in the economy, to which the Prime Minister refers in her speeches, will come from. Unless it happens in the Midlands—unless encouragement is given to that region—the position will worsen.
Those dire warnings come not only from trade unions and Labour Members but from established, recognised and well-regarded figures in the business community in the Midlands. The Government would do well to study the TUC report carefully and to regard the comments made in it as an indication of the way in which they can best help in the Midlands. They should read it and act upon it immediately. The Midlands area, once the centre of full employment—the boisterous, booming heart of the nation—is now in danger of a terminal seizure. The Government must provide a pacemaker at once.
I believe that in this debate my right hon. and hon. Friends will conclusively prove that the welfare of the Midlands has for far too long been ignored by the Government. The priority must be to reflate the economy, support retraining schemes for workers, offer increased skill training opportunities to the young, and provide the climate for the development of an industrial renaissance. If the Government cannot or will not do those things within

a programme designed to reduce unemployment they should do the honourable thing and place their record before the electorate and seek a new mandate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): The whole House will have listened with particular interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever). I believe that I am right in saying that it was his first from the Dispatch Box. I congratulate him on a well constructed, thoughtful speech, delivered with confidence and in a way that challenged the Government side of the House and enlisted the support of his hon. Friends over a wide spectrum. I am sure that we shall hear the hon. Gentleman speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on many occasions. He will be a great improvement on some of the others who appear there from time to time.
This is an important debate. Those of us who have had the opportunity to take part in similar debates in the past regard them as occasions for serious and detailed contributions. I am sure that we shall have them today. There is a wide range of expertise present on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will listen with particular interest and will later pick up some of the themes of the debate. I should like to speak briefly, because I do not wish to answer immediately some of the points that the hon. Gentleman put. I am sure that they will be taken up and orchestrated from both sides of the House.
Perhaps I may immediately be somewhat more critical of the hon. Member's contribution. He naturally fell into the trap of giving us a gloomy picture. He did not try to strike a balance. We heard nothing about the good news.
Let us look at the problem clearly. We are all aware that the Midlands is, in effect, two distinct regions—the West and the East Midlands, different in nature and with different industrial problems. In the West Midlands, the heartland of our manufacturing industry, it was inevitable that the national and world-wide recession would bite particularly deeply. I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not put his remarks in that context. In the East Midlands, traditionally a prosperous area with a wide industrial base, the problems have centred on the long-term decline of the relatively small number of important industries, particularly clothing and footwear.
But to say that the regions have distinct sets of problems is not to say that they are in a traditional sense regional problems. I appreciated that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he tried to look at the question of regional aid in a wider context. I shall come to that a little later. We have for a long time been faced by parts of the country suffering from locational disadvantages or long-term structural decline—the problems of Merseyside, the North-East and the far South-West are well known to the House. By and large, their problems are not the problems of the Midlands. They are very much a reflection of national problems, of, in some areas, historical failure to remain competitive, particularly certain industries, and to adjust to a changing world.
That is a reality well understood in the Midlands, particularly in the West Midlands. Even with the conurbation suffering such historically high levels of unemployment, there has been remarkably little clamour for regional aid. A number of representations have been


considered, but so far as I am aware only Telford is currently putting in an application for assisted area status. A deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) will be seeing my hon. Friend the Minister of State next month to discuss its case.
I find myself leaning very much towards the argument that, by and large, regional policy cannot offer solutions to problems of the sort faced overall in the Midlands. I shall come to some specific instances in which that policy must perhaps be looked at in practical terms in isolated cases, but in general I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument.
In the East Midlands the problems are rather different. We now recognise the validity of a regional policy to meet some of them. In particular, the House will recall the prompt action that the Government took to help Corby when the steelworks closed, giving it the investment incentives of a development area. Equally, a number of hon. Members have in their constituencies assisted areas, which are, as part of our efforts to concentrate regional aid, to lose assisted area status in 1982. Hon. Members may make a case against that today. I shall listen carefully to such arguments, though they will have to be very strong to persuade us that we should be deflected in any way from our efforts to concentrate and to increase the effectiveness of regional aid.
If the problems are, in general, not traditional regional-type problems, what are they? In the West Midlands they are the result of many factors: the legacy of inefficiency in some parts of industry; problems of industrial relations, which in the motor industry, for example, are well known; problems of industrial relations, in striking the right balance, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) mentioned; the cost-plus, piecework mentality of the war years, nurtured by a virtual absence of competition, as many of us who worked in industry at the time will recall, during the first 10 post-war years, and sustained in many cases right up to the 1970s; low wage differentials between the skilled and the unskilled; the hoarding of skilled labour in times of prosperity; the advantage taken in the past of the influx of immigrants prepared to do less attractive, low-paid, unskilled work, thus removing the incentive to modernise old capital equipment; the carrying for so long by so many firms of the dead weight of overmanning.
In the East Midlands and much of the rest of the country all the same problems apply. The diversity of the industrial base enabled the region to sustain a relatively high level of prosperity for a long period, but its hopes of escaping the recession have foundered on the heavy dependence of some areas on clothing and footwear, with their now so well-known history of competition from abroad.
Against that historical background we have also to set a number of current problems. First, we must consider inflation. Time and time again industry in the Midlands, as elsewhere, has made clear its view that the control of inflation must be our first priority. The hon. Gentleman talked about some of the views of leaders of West Midlands industry. He may wish to recall that on his recent visit to Birmingham my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was told by the chambers of industry and commerce that they had identified the reduction of inflation as a key factor likely to improve business prospects in the region.

I should like to feel that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the continuing fall in the rate of inflation in each of the past nine months.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Will the Minister also take on board the fact that four of my hon. Friends and I were told last Friday by leaders of West Midlands industry, in the guise of the CBI, that, whatever inflation came down to, we and our constituents would have to live with a permanent pool of 2 million unemployed? The Opposition are not prepared to accept that.

Mr. Marshall: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not think that anyone would relish the prospect of a high level of unemployment, but the hon. Gentleman knows, and the whole House knows, that this problem is not capable of immediate and instant solution. We are facing a long-term problem, not only in this country but over the whole of Western Europe.
The other factor to which the CBI referred as being of key importance was interest rates, and the hon. Member for Ladywood also referred to it. The Government are seeking to bring down interest rates as fast as possible without disrupting the prime objective of controlling inflation. The House and industry welcomed the 2 per cent. reduction in MLR announced in the Budget and the contribution that this will make to business prospects.

Mr. Sever: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that everyone welcomes every kind of reduction in MLR and interest rates. Although the 2 per cent. reduction was welcomed, many industrialists have told me that it was largely discounted in advance.

Mr. Marshall: That is the natural approach of business men in this situation, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is a significant and a progressive move. I hope that it will be part of a continuing process by which the reduction of interest rates goes steadily down, along with the reduction in inflation.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Surely the important thing is the effect that a reduction in MLR will have in increasing demand. The fact that it may have been discounted by the money markets and the Stock Exchange is completely irrelevant, is it not?

Mr. Marshall: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has put the question into a broad statesmanlike perspective, and I entirely agree with what he said.
I deal next with a set of particular problems that are specific to the region, and are important and worrying. First, there is the problem of the steel closures at Bilston, and, in particular, at Corby. I have mentioned some aspects of that area. There are also the inner city problems, particularly in the West Midlands conurbation. I have mentioned already the problems of the clothing and footwear industries.
It is easy enough to list the problems, as the hon. Member for Ladywood did, but it is much harder to see the solutions. We should be looking at what can be done now to help the region weather the recession and the unemployment that it is currently facing, and in the short-term future at the ways in which it must adapt to ensure that it emerges from the recession with a sound industrial base and a level of prosperity comparable to that which it has traditionally enjoyed.
First, this means continuing our efforts to create a climate for the growth of industry. This remains the thrust of our industrial policy. The defeat of inflation through the control of the money supply is the course that we must follow. I shall not take up time by repeating the economic argument ad nauseam, because it is well known to the House, but I believe that it is right.
Secondly, it means supporting—as long as there continues to be a prospect of viability—the single most important industry in the West Midlands, namely, the vehicle industry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about not throwing money at problems. He went on to argue that there may be specific cases. The specific case that is of most value to the West Midlands is the vehicle industry. The House will not need reminding of the magnitude of our support—almost £1 billion committed over the next two years—but this support has taken into account not only BL but the large number of component manufacturers throughout the Midlands who are affected by the future of that great company.
We took the dificult decision to support BL in the clear knowledge of its vital importance to the whole of the local economy. It has been a very difficult matter, because not only are we taking a view here about the motor industry in respect of that particular company; we are having to make a judgment on whether that company is becoming successful with its new models.
Incidentally, it would have been nice to hear the hon. Gentleman talking today about the Metro. I hope that he will join all those who feel that the success of that new model is of great significance to his part of the world.
In other industries we are prepared to continue to make aid available under section 8 of the Industry Act to help attract investment which is either internationally mobile—and might otherwise go abroad—or will lead to substantial improvements in performance or to the introduction of new products. The West Midlands has received over £17 million in the period from May 1979 to December 1980, and the East Midlands has received just over £9 million in the same period. Furthermore, as part of the effort to stimulate new enterprise in the region, we have introduced two enterprise zones, at Dudley and Corby, in the first experimental group of 11 zones. It is too early to evaluate the effect that these zones will have on the Midlands, but it is an important initiative and one that we shall watch with great interest.
As the House will recall, firms within the zones are freed from rates and benefit from a simplified planning regime and from various tax concessions. They are given the freedom to develop. These developments—this is part of the good news that we did not hear this afternoon—have been warmly welcomed by the two communities, and they will do much to regenerate the local economies.
Thirdly, if we are to pursue effective policies in the short or in the medium term, it will mean continuing to support a range of employment schemes designed either to keep people in employment or to provide opportunities for training or work experience for the unemployed in the Midlands as a whole. I remind the House that 181,000 people are benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, 98,000 from the job release scheme, and 600 from the community industry scheme. Since April 1980, 53,600 people have joined the youth opportunity grant schemes, and 14,000 have joined the special temporary employment programme schemes.
Fourthly, it means help with the particularly acute problems faced in the region. I have already mentioned the help given to Corby to which we gave development area status. It has, as a result attracted additional support from the EEC. It means continued determination to see a viable textile and clothing industry in the Midlands and the United Kingdom as a whole.
We shall implement the existing multi-fibre arrangement and press for a continuation of effective restraints when the current MFA expires at the end of 1981. Voluntary restraint agreements have already been signed with Mediterranean suppliers, and this matter will receive continuing attention. The hon. Gentleman spoke of unfair competition. If any hon. Members have evidence of that, my colleagues at the Department of Trade will be anxious to look at it as a matter of great importance.

Mr. Sever: One of the difficulties is that when such cases have been brought to the attention of various Ministers it has been found that legislation is required in other countries to control the abuse of our system. The difficulty is that we cannot get the agreement of the countries concerned to help us in the way that we seek. Does the Minister agree that that is the difficulty?

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I am not unaware of the difficulties in trying to deal with the subject in the way that he suggests, but he may agree that we have to continue to seek transparency and reciprocity in these matters. For an exporting country such as ours the stakes are very much higher than for many of the countries with which we are holding such conversations.
Part of the assistance that we must consider is a continuation of our help for the footwear industry, through restrictions on imports from a number of countries. Quota or voluntary restraint agreements now apply to imports from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and China, and industry-to-industry restraint agreements on all footwear exist with the South Koreans and the Taiwanese.
With regard to help for inner city areas, through the traditional urban programme and inner city policy £23 million of resources have been earmarked in 1980–81 under these headings alone.
There is also the question of assistance for small firms. The hon. Gentleman was critical of the Government's approach to these matters, yet the West Midlands in particular is a classical example of an area where even tiny firms, which make a massive contribution to the prosperity of the area, may well find considerable support from what is provided in the Budget.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although we have heard about the big firms—the headline snatchers—the real tragedy of the West Midlands has been the tens of thousands of jobs lost, six here and 10 there, with the decline of small firms?

Mr. Marshall: A problem faces the whole of industry, including both large and small companies. I should like the hon. Gentleman, with his usual sense of fairness, to consider some of the good news coming up on the small business front. As he will know, the Budget contained no fewer than 10 measures of assistance to small firms, of which perhaps the most important was the loan guarantee scheme. It is designed to overcome the difficulties


currently faced in raising finance by the new small business that has no track record to display. We shall certainly continue with our efforts in that direction.
Most importantly, it means helping the industries of the Midlands to adapt and change to meet today's competitive environment. Those hon. Members who take an interest in industry will know that there are many different types of business in the Midlands. There are some efficient modern businesses and some that are still, in a way, part of our long tradition of the Industrial Revolution. The climb out of the recession will be led by the new high technology growth industries.
The House recognises the problems of rapid change. The Government have made available extensive schemes of assistance for firms with new processes or products, particularly where these involve microelectronics. We are maintaining the microprocessor application projects, the microelectronic industry support programme and the product and process development scheme. Industry in the Midlands has already benefited to the extent of over £15 million of assistance in this way.
We all recognise the severity of the problems faced by the Midlands. Historically, unemployment is high. To put things in a broader perspective, it must be said that the problem has been evident and growing since 1975. In addition, the problem must be seen in the perspective of the country as a whole. Regrettably, the North, the North-West, Wales and Scotland still have much greater unemployment and industrial problems.
It is right that the House should express concern about the problems of the Midlands. Our efforts should be directed towards ensuring that the Midlands weathers the recession without irreparable damage being done to its industrial base. That is why I stressed, for example, our support for the vehicle industry and the efforts that we have made on behalf of the clothing and footwear industries.
Perhaps it is a function of the way in which not only our proceedings but industry affairs are reported that as the good news comes in the bad news tends to be stressed. However, we see encouraging signs. The Staffordshire Development Association reported this month that in the last two years it has pulled in 100 new arrivals, creating 2,500 jobs. In Coventry, Alfred Herbert has found increased demand for its CNC machine tools and intends to move towards double its present rate of production by 1982. Hon. Members will remember Alfred Herbert's background of problems. One could make a list of such companies, but the fact remains that the problems are being offset over a lengthy time scale.
We often have to wait five or seven years before the real benefits of new investment come through. It is essential to bear in mind that the Midlands, like so much of British industry, will come through the recession by means of diversification into the growth industries of the future, by means of a sound growing base of small firms and by means of the employment potential that we all recognise. The solution to the employment problems of the West Midlands lies primarily in the encouragement of those sectors. That is precisely the aim of the Government's policy, but we can only encourage such growth. Ultimately, it is up to those in the Midlands to act and to

turn the spirit of enterprise—of which they are justifiably proud—towards new directions in which they will be able to secure their future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. This is a very important debate. Twenty-three right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have indicated their wish to take part in it. Those who speak at inordinate length will prevent their colleagues from speaking.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What about hon. Ladies? They also represent the areas involved and would like to be called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I recollect that the hon. Lady mentioned that the other day. As far as the Chair is concerned, ladies are included in "hon. Gentlemen" and "hon. Members".

Mr. Peter Archer: This House was, in its origin, a place where elected representatives came from the various localities to express the grievances of those who sent them, so that the Executive would know the problems and aspirations of local communities and could build up a picture of the country's needs. That was and is the purpose of the House. Our debates should echo the grievances of the localities and should provide a clear indication of what we are asking the Government to do.
But that purpose is achieved only if the Government show by their actions that they have listened to the debate and respond accordingly. I do not say that they should carry out slavishly everything that is asked of them. There may even be conflicting requests. However, our debate, to be effective, should get through to the Government's consciousness and should influence the Government's thinking. If that does not happen, the people back home could be forgiven for asking what is the purpose of parliamentary debate or parliamentary democracy.
I have a feeling of déjà vu. On 20 June 1980 the House debated this same subject of unemployment in the West Midlands. Indeed, at this point I should like to add my congratulations to those given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever). It is a great pleasure to see him sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate him on the force with which he put our case. Even he will agree that what he said—and, indeed, what we all say—has mirrored and will mirror almost exactly what we said nine months ago.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: It is not quite a feeling of déjà vu, because since then unemployment has increased sharply throughout the region.

Mr. Archer: That is precisely the point that I had intended to make. The arguments and the complaints are the same, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, the figures are worse. Indeed, the debate might never have taken place. As a whole, the Midlands has a depressing story to tell. In 1971 the unemployment rates in the East and the West Midlands—excluding school leavers—was each 2·9 per cent.— only the South-East had a better figure—but by December 1980 the figure for the East Midlands was 8 per cent. and for the West Midlands 9·9 per cent. Even the South-West had a figure of 8·1 per cent. The figure for the East Midlands was only marginally better and that for


the West Midlands was substantially worse. The debate was held nine months ago. Hon. Members from all parties explained the plight of our industry and of those who worked in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), whose absence today we regret, pointed out that in 1966 the West Midlands contained 5 per cent. of the nation's unemployed. By June 1980 it contained 10 per cent. In addition, by June 1980, 22 per cent. of the unemployed among the ethnic minorities were situated in the West Midlands. We explained that the reason for such high unemployment did not lie in a lack of skills. If that vast reservoir of industrial skills is fast draining away, it is not the cause of unemployment but the result. As people are made redundant they leave to find work in different industries, away from those in which they developed their skills. Companies are reducing the number of apprenticeships on offer. Youngsters who leave school to acquire skills are told that no one will want them even if they take the trouble to acquire those skills.
We explained that the reason for such unemployment did not lie in bad industrial relations, although Conservative Members have tried today to make that point. We all related examples of how managements and unions had co-operated to the full in introducing schemes to save their companies. We explained that the reason for such unemployment did not lie in the fact that the people were not prepared to work. They are not just sitting down and taking it but are fighting hard for their existence.
In Cradley Heath, in my constituency, several small and medium-sized engineering companies have grouped together in a joint training scheme known as the provident joint training scheme. Not only has it revolutionised training methods, and persuaded managements to rethink their procedures; it has twice arranged a tour of Holland to demonstrate to our Dutch friends what British industry can do. On each occasion, it has returned with over £10 million of orders. But those companies are swimming against a current set running by the Government. The very existence of such schemes will be jeopardised if the Government place a question mark over the future of the Engineering Industry Training Board.
It does not help to talk about a world recession. British industry is losing its share of world markets. The world is making too many tubes and too many industrial fasteners. So we are in danger of losing not only our export markets but our home markets, because they are being invaded by goods from countries where Governments accept responsibility for the welfare of industry. Companies in such countries receive concealed subsidies, cheap capital, tax concessions and sometimes patent subsidies. Our industry is racing against competitors who have the benefit of a half-length start. That is why some of us reluctantly argue for selective import controls.
Let us not confuse the argument by speaking of technological revolutions. It may be that within 20 or 30 years the world's needs will be met by a small work force working short hours. That will require a readjustment in our thinking, and it is important that we should debate it. But that is not the issue that we are debating today. We are discussing unemployment while human needs are not being met. We are discussing unemployment side by side with material deprivation. We are discussing unemployment in the construction industry, while in Sandwell 4,800 families on the live housing list, apart from what is known as the supplementary list, are asking for any kind of

accommodation. We are discussing the laying off of thousands of people in vehicle building while in some countries people are starving for lack of agricultural machinery. It is nothing to do with the technological revolution.
We are concerned with the circulation of money. People are unemployed because those who desperately need the goods cannot afford them. As more companies experience cash flow problems, the settlement of bills is increasingly delayed and the circulatory economic system slows to a halt.
On 20 June last year we explained that the reasons lay chiefly in high interest rates. They distorted exchange rates so that we were less competitive abroad. It was impossible to carry large stocks, because they cost too much. Above all, high interest rates made it impossible to borrow for investment, so worn-out plant was not replaced and new technology was not installed.
We explained that the problem remained with the money supply and that the Government must do something about it. We might as well have saved our breath. The Government were totally unresponsive to our appeals. They were impervious to our arguments. They were firm in their course, and the lady was not for turning. Monetarism still stalked through the land unchecked.
Between January and June 1980 unemployment among people in the West Midlands, including school leavers, rose from 5·7 per cent. to 6·8 per cent. Then we held our debate and made our appeals to the Government. By December 1980 unemployment had risen to 10·4 per cent. In the past month, unemployment in the East Midlands has risen by 5,300 and in the West Midlands by 9,800. Those statistics tell the story of real communities and of interrelated complexes of industrial processes where each contract provides a spin-off for other sections of industry.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that those figures tell only a fraction of the story, because they deal only with unemployment'? Did he note that, despite the assurance given to me by the Leader of the House during business questions last week, to the effect that the Mininster would note the request for details about short-time working, the Minister did not see fit to refer to it, still less to give any details? Would not the entire picture of the misery in my constituency and in my right hon. and learned Friend's constituency be reflected better by showing not merely the unemployment figures for short-time working, which often means unemployment for four days out of five?

Mr. Archer: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The statistics tell a bleak but bare part of the story. We can talk about second incomes, short-time working and many concealed losses of income. I was about to put a little flesh on the bones.
In the last debate on this subject I mentioned the names of some companies in my constituency, some of which have been mentioned by my hon. friend the Member for Ladywood, which for generations have been synonymous with British industy. Such names formed part of the vocabulary wherever in the world people spoke of engineering, industrial fasteners, tubes, chains and cables, boilers, lifting gear, and so on. They were family companies not only because they were owned by local families but because the labour forces consisted largely of people whose grandfathers had worked in the same


companies. Since that debate, some of those names have disappeared, such as Chance Brothers, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley East (Mr. Faulds), Babcock and Wilcox, in boilers, and BSR, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, which has recently ended over 1,000 jobs. My hon.Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) can tell similar stories about her area. In many of these places the topic of conversation is whether next week people will be working two days or three days.

Miss Boothroyd: Or none.

Mr. Archer: Or none. At first, in honesty, the evidence was not obvious to the eye. If pay packets were thinner, the deprivation was concealed. If the diet changed, it happened at meals at which only the family were present. If the holiday was nearer home, only the suntan was absent. But now it is showing through. People are still paying their round but the clubs and pubs are empty except at weekends, and then only later in the evening. Suits have been discreetly patched. Children are more frequently denied the chance of going on school trips, because their parents cannot spare the money. Self-respect has not gone, because people are papering over the cracks, but the paper is wearing thin.
When councils are compelled to increase rates and rents there is something akin to desperation in those communities. That is why I pointed to the purpose of holding debates in the House. Elected representatives should express to the Government what is happening before it is too late. If the Government refuse to listen they cast doubt on the effectiveness of the parliamentary process.
Last week some of us were confronted by desperate people saying that they could not afford to pay rent and rate increases because they were not earning enough money. There were those present who sought to persuade them to respond by witholding the payment of rent. I believe in parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. If those principles are endangered, the people that we represent will not benefit. I have said that continually; I said it then, and I say it now. But what does one say to people who remark "So you had a debate in Parliament about unemployment in the Midlands. What resulted from it? How differently will the Government behave?".
My purpose in intervening was not to suggest remedies, because we have done that already. We know the arguments used by the Government to justify their policies. The Government claim that their policies will bring down inflation. Even if they were the most effective method of fighting inflation, the spectre which haunts us is of Britain with no inflation and no industry. Treating sickness by letting blood may prove effective for certain conditions, but if it is persisted in over a long period those conditions will become academic, because the patient will be dead.
We have asked for assistance in Sandwell. If the Minister is unaware of it, we can give details. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West may give details in her contribution.
We are grateful for any measures to alleviate the position even marginally, but no one has persuaded us that our salvation lies in cosmetic treatment. A Budget which

boasts of tax relief on start-up capital for small businesses but sends transport costs through the roof does not indicate that the Government have grasped the problem.
The Minister spoke of the enterprise zone about to be established in Dudley just outside my constituency. I say this with respect to my good friend the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn): it may attract some business to the area but it has not brought smiles to the faces of those operating businesses just outside the area. They suspect that it will attract not a different kind of industry but competitors in the same kind of business taking advantage of rate concessions. So, for every job produced within the zone a job will be lost on the other side of the wall.
My intervention is in the nature of an appeal. If the Government continue to ignore the sense of our debates and if Conservative Members who share our concern—I believe that some do—continue to uphold the Government in their course, they risk losing markets that we can never regain, dismantling entire industries that we can never reassemble, losing skills that we can never replace and producing a loss of confidence in a whole way of life. I beg them to take heed of what is said in the debate before another nine months pass, because next time it may be too late.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) is always listened to with great respect. He is renowned for his sincerity. I was interested to hear his comments and his castigation of the Government. He took up some of the longer-term problems, and I was sorry that he did not go further along that path. So often that sort of analysis is absent from the arguments advanced by Labour Members when we debate, as inexorably as we do, unemployment and the problems that arise from it.
When the Leader of the Opposition took office he said that he was determined to debate unemployment up hill and down dale, week after week. That is his privilege. We have had many debates on the levels of unemployment, nationally and regionally. It worries me that the arguments so far advanced from the Opposition Benches—I welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) to the Opposition Front Bench—are still sterile. We hear a recital of the problems about which we all know. No one would minimise them. They are extremely serious. Unemployment in the West Midlands has doubled over the past year or so. It seems that the Opposition's panacea is reflation. In effect they are saying "Give us more money. Let us print more money. Let us get things moving again to try to alter the present situation".
Concern about unemployment does not lie purely with Opposition Members. My right hon. and hon. Friends are equally concerned. Like Labour Members, we too have constituencies. Surely it is time that the House moved forward to consider what should be done when the recession begins to come to an end and the country begins to take off again. There will be a long-term problem in the next three or four years to be dealt with by a Conservative or a Labour Government. The problem will not be solved by the generalisations that we hear so often from both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Ladywood made an interesting comment when he talked about Coventry. He said that it was once one of the most prosperous cities in Europe.
Indeed, the West Midlands was one of the most prosperous areas in Europe. It is still prosperous, but not as prosperous as it was. Why is that? Coventry was overmanned. It did not produce as much as it should have done. It fed on the seedcorn. It was overmanned and overpaid. It was receiving far too much money for the productivity that it was achieving, and we are now picking up the bills. Many of those who were amongst the most prosperous citizens within Europe are now unemployed or on short time.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall give way once. I promised to be brief. I am aware that others wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has laid the catalogue of evils solely at the door of working people in the Midlands. Can he not find it in himself to attribute at least equal blame to a lack of management, especially in engineering development, in his catalogue, put the responsibility side by side and balance the argument? Surely it was the right of management to give a lead and to produce the necessary engineering. If that had been done there would have been a different result in the West Midlands.

Mr. Smith: I agree with that. The hon. Gentleman was one of the managers. The company with which he was connected has gone through some rough times. Time and again management gave way to organised labour. It did not have its industrial relations on the right lines. It seemed that management and organised labour were unable jointly to work out the right approach for the future. I accept that management bears much responsibility. Many of those who are now calling out for help—some of them have been quoted by the hon. Member for Ladywood—were once saying "The world is prosperous. There is nothing to worry about in future. We can go on in the same sweet way." We have suffered a great fall. Both management and employees share responsibility for the past and the present situation.
I am especially concerned about the West Midlands, as I represent a constituency within it, but the Midlands generally has been known as the workshop of Britain. It is right that it should still be so regarded in future. Constituents have lobbied us strongly and said that it is wrong for this Administration,with their tough and realistic policy, to give large sums to nationalised industries. It is an aspect that worries me considerably. However, I agree with the Government in forwarding funds to BL. It was a hard judgment to make. I have in mind the many jobs not only in BL but in the car component industry, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred. Many jobs are at stake, and it would be folly not to support the efforts of Sir Michael Edwardes in the new and realistic approach that BL has adopted.
The company still has some way to go. I am not entirely convinced that it will succeed, despite the Metro. However, I hope with all my heart that it will succeed. It is not merely a West Midlands problem. The future of British industry is involved. I support the Government wholeheartedly in what they are trying to do to get BL on the right lines, but in the West Midlands and in the

Midlands generally we should begin to question whether the area should be known as the heartland of the car industry in Britain.
We have gone through Many phases over the years. In some respects the car industry has had its day, when it is remembered what it was 15 or 20 years ago. There will always be a place for it, but it is dangerous to put all our eggs in one basket and to make the industry the major industrial factor in the West Midlands.
It is a controversial statement for me to make. but I do not support those who are lobbying strongly for the new Nissan project to come to the Midlands. There is a case for making that claim. There is a desperate need for jobs, but there are other areas where unemployment is greater. The claims of Wales and other parts of the peripheral areas of the British Isles are strong. I shall not seek to identify those areas. I merely say that they may have a stronger case to submit that the Nissan project should go to them.
If the project were to come to the West Midlands, we might still be pushing forward with the idea that forever and a day the Midlands will be the centre of the car industry and that the industry will be the motivation for the industrial future of the British Isles. I cannot subscribe to that idea.
Only today the TUC's figures have been published, which state:
One in five of the 107,000 redundancies reported between last October and February were in the vehicle industry.
The decline is continuing. The Midlands must now turn its attention to new and innovative industries that will provide long-term jobs. Such industries will provide an opportunity for future generations to get away from the concentration of heavy industry that we have had in the past. These industries will enable the Midlands to be not only a workshop but an innovative area.
In the area that I represent, there are new companies with new ideas. Each of these companies is contributing in a small way to improving employment opportunities, and there is the prospect that that will give a lead to other areas. A few years ago, IBM came to Warwick. The company now has one of the main computer centres in Britain. It is enormously successful, with a good rate of employment, and good employers and employees. There is no redundancy. It is making progress and is a most successful company.
Recently, in Leamington Spa, in my area, ASDA has opened a new superstore, which has provided much-needed employment for many. It is appreciated by the local community and gives the sign for future developments of that kind throughout the Midlands. Further, a large new hotel complex is about to open. It is to be called the Ladbroke Hotel. It is on the outskirts of Warwick and will make a significant contribution to tourism and provide much-needed jobs.
I have mentioned before the need to regard tourism as a major industry. We are extremely naive in our approach to the matter. We all talk about it and subscribe to it, but we do not realise its potential for providing employment. We must change our attitudes and do more as a country, with our enormous wealth of tourist potential, to encourage more and more people to enter that industry, because jobs can be created in tourism. There will be many opportunities in the future if we plan in the correct way.
The other point that I wish to make was also raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West in his interesting remarks. Nationally, whatever the policies of


the Government of the day, we must face the fact that over the next 20 or 30 years we shall have a much larger pool of unemployed than we have known in the past. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and I have been Members of the House for between 15 and 20 years. In that time, although there have been quarrels about the numbers, by and large the number of unemployed has been reasonably acceptable, give or take a few thousand.
Those who will follow us in the next 20 or 30 years will be faced with well over 1 million permanently unemployed. It will be extremely difficult for the Government to know exactly how to harness their talents and employ their abilities if they are not to rot or fester and become totally disillusioned. The right hon. and learned Member knows as well as I do that one can go round large modern factories today and see them being run by 25 or 50 people, whereas 15 or 20 years ago the employees were numbered in hundreds. It is a modern-day problem. I do not think that it is insuperable, but it is one that we have constantly to bear in mind.
It is essential that in looking towards the future, and in planning to ensure that in areas such as the West Midlands we retain the prosperity that we have known for many years, and still to a large extent retain today, with all the difficulties of a high rate of unemployment, we do what we can to preserve present employment. We constantly hear talk from the Opposition and those outside about the fact that so many are out of work, and that one in 10 is out of work. I prefer to put that more positively and say that nine out of 10 people are in employment.
I am worried about some of the activities of those who, instead of competing against industry, which is still working reasonably succesfully, are trying to hamper it. I draw the attention of hon. Members to an article in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph.It said:
Manufacturing companies believe State industries are abusing their monopoly power by demanding swifter payment of bills while delaying their own payments.
That matter has been called to the public's attention by the Engineering Employers Federation. Private industry has enough problems with cash flows and competition from world sources without being hamstrung by the pressures generated by the electricity boards, the gas boards, British Telecom and others.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is in the right Department to pay attention to the pressures being generated against private industry. Private businesses can cope with many pressures, but if the burden becomes too great others will go to the wall who do not deserve to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear my remarks in mind.
Unemployment has been growing inexorably over the past 15 or 20 years. There are easy answers and easy options—they are put forward every time by the Opposition—such as reflation, which is the cosmetic approach to get more jobs quickly. We need a second Industrial Revolution and the sort of approach that will create permanent employment and provide a firm base. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, that will not come about overnight. It will be five, six or seven years before we have the permanent employment that will stand us in good stead in our relations with the rest of the world.
I think that the upturn is not so far away. At the weekend I was talking to a prominent accountant in my

constituency who has his ear close to the ground. He said "It is turning already. I know two or three firms where improvement is taking place." I queried that and said, "I am sure you are wrong. I have not detected it myself." He said "Yes, it is. I have other evidence as well. It is coming through rather more quickly than is believed." I hope that he is right. I am sure that we all hope that he is right, but, in the meantime, until that reflation can be started by productive means and not by printing money, the Government are on the right lines. They must intensify their efforts. They must be steadfast and courageous, in view of the strong criticisms coming from all quarters. I hope that they will reject the advice that 364 so-called distinguished economists gave.

Mr. Budgen: One for every day of the year.

Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend says, one for every day of the year. But with economists one pays one's penny and takes one's choice. Economists have not had a very good track record in their advice to various Governments. Part of the trouble that we have today stems from the advice tendered to the Labour Government. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend will stick to their task. If they do, the country will come through.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I am greatly tempted to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith). The Opposition would prefer the advice of 300 British economists to the advice of one £50,000-a-year American economist who is the person advising the present Government.
Nearly half a century ago I marched with 380 unemployed workers to Lancashire from London. We were protesting against the deflationist policies of the National Government, led by Ramsay MacDonald. The only area in the country where jobs were available during the 1930s was in the Midlands. Unemployed workers from Lancashire, Scotland and South Wales migrated to the West Midlands and were able to find jobs which lasted for many years. The whole situation has changed fundamentally because now the Midlands has ½ million unemployed and about 60,000 workers on short time.
Some of the industries in the Midlands cannot possibly compete in world markets. Even if some of those industries paid no wages at all they would not be competitive. The traditional, highly efficient industries cannot meet the high interest charges on money that they have to borrow to pay the wage bill. Among the industries that were expanding and were a credit to the country was the paper-making industry, including Bowater's and Reed's who had factories as modern as any in the world and full order books. Yet they have closed. The reasons are the high value of sterling, high interest rates and the cost of fuel, which is double that paid by their overseas competitors. How can they compete under those conditions, which are entirely due to Government policies, urged on by an American so-called economist?
The chemical industry has never before known a slump, but now factory after factory is closing and massive redundancies are being declared, even by ICI. The chemical industry, which has always expanded, is in dire trouble. The troubles have to be related to the


Government's policy of deflation. That policy failed in the 1930s and only massive rearmament and the Second World War saved our economy. I hope that we are not heading for that sort of solution again. I hope that we have learnt that massive rearmament and war will not solve the problems of the system.
In the old days we used to liken the financial system to a railway train that had broken down. It had three compartments; in the first-class compartment were bankers, financiers and the very rich, in the second-class compartment were small business men, top civil servants and the like, and in the third-class compartment were working people, the unemployed, the sick and the poor.
The train had broken down and the order went out "First-class passengers, retain your seats. Second-class passengers, get out and walk. Third-class passengers, get out and push." Working people are still expected to do all the pushing, but there is something different today. The third-class compartment has millions of new passengers, including hundreds of thousands of low-paid civil servants and scores of small business men and workers who would not have been considered third-class passengers in the 1930s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), who made an excellent maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench, mentioned small businesses. In 1950 about 75 per cent. of net manufacturing industry consisted of small businesses employing 200 workers or fewer. Today, such small businesses perform only 25 per cent. of net manufacturing. The 100 largest companies in the country have moved from 25 per cent. of net manufacturing in 1950 to 75 per cent. last year.
Those large companies are responsible for more than half our total export trade. Whatever we do to help small companies, they will be taken over by large firms that were once British, but are now multinational. The assets of small companies are squeezed and often the companies are closed, as though they had never existed. There is no future for small companies in present circumstances.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The facts do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Last year, the two Midlands small firms centres received more than 5,000 inquiries, an increase of 65 per cent. on the previous year.

Mr. Edwards: They were only inquiries. The only real progress among small companies has come from the development of industrial co-operatives that have grown in number from 20 to 300 in the past five years. But what are the Government doing to help that massive development? They have stopped the subsidy that the previous Government willingly gave to industrial common ownership finance and they are threatening to stop money going to the Co-operative Development Agency, a worthy institution that is more responsible than any other for the development of small companies through industrial common ownership.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I shall conclude shortly, though I am tempted to go on. The West Midlands did not face a massive slump during the 1930s, but the situation is becoming almost hopeless today. A total of ½ million working people feel that they are treated as criminals and outcasts. It seems that nowhere in this big world is there a place where they can fit in and

do a useful job. We must end that tragedy, and to do so we need not a new Industrial Revolution, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, but a new and courageous social revolution.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I was recently in Australia, where I saw that school leavers in Sydney were finding it, if anything, more difficult to get a job than are school leavers in my constituency. We should remind ourselves that unemployment is a problem throughout the free world and that in many countries it is accelerating.
If we ask ourselves the reason for that we must conclude that the major cause is the huge increase in the price of oil. There is a lesson to be learnt by contrasting the way in which we behaved in 1974 with the way in which the Japanese and Germans behaved. We allowed wage inflation to develop, and our goods consequently became increasingly uncompetitive.
Our competitive position was maintained only by the pound falling greatly. That drop in the value of the pound ripped off our farmers and our savers. Between 1974 and 1979 industry's profits were remorselessly squeezed. Who can doubt that many of the industries in difficulty today would be better able to weather the storm if their profits had been going up over that period and they had some fat on which to draw, or if the previous Government had run a tight ship so that when we became a petro-currency our exporters were not faced with the huge reversal in the relative positions of the pound and the dollar?
The previous Government reinforced our Achilles heel—the rigidity of our labour market. Much of their legislation, including the Employment Protection Act, made it much more difficult for employers to take on people and much more difficult for them to react to market conditions if they had to trim. Equally, they progressively and, I would argue, finally destroyed the private rented sector. It has become extremely difficult for people to travel from one part of the country to another to find a job.
Many of the seeds of the present unemployment were sown during the years from 1974 to 1979. I recall how the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time put £1 billion on the payroll tax without even consulting the then Secretary of State for Employment. Some of the panic measures that followed the introduction by the IMF of sensible housekeeping bore hardly on the private sector. If my memory serves me correctly, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer took £5 billion out of the capital programme. It was an easy way of cutting public expenditure, but it also bore hardly on private industry.
It remains true in the West Midlands that if our motor industry were as good as it is bad there would be no problems. That is probably true for Great Britain as a whole. The problems of the motor industry go back a long way. I subscribe to the view that one does not have bad regiments. One has bad officers. One does not have bad companies. One has bad management. However, bad management can be made much worse if Government decisions are equally bad. Some of the decisions of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Beni) were positively disastrous for the motor car industry. I wonder whether his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) now believes that he was right to bail out Chrysler.
We are beginning, thank God, to see some improvement in industrial relations. I hope that the great


blessing to come out of the recession will be a greater awareness among those who work together in a company that they are all in the same boat. I should like to see not only management developing involvement at every level where appropriate, and through profit sharing, but a response from the trade unions. If unions can get together to form a single bargaining point to tempt Nissan to invest, I hope that they can get together to find a single bargaining point in some of the companies where wage bargaining is still a traumatic experience.
Japan and Germany benefited from having their economies destroyed during the war. We have not replaced our capital base, as should have happened. We have concentrated too much on preserving jobs in old industries rather than on creating conditions in which new industries can come forward. The most important question for the Government to ask themselves is how industrial confidence can be rebuilt. The Government have made a good start, measured by the criteria of what one constituent put to me three years ago. He asked "How can I run my company when I cannot pay my people what they deserve and when I cannot get my best managers back from abroad because of the fiscal system? I cannot raise money on the Stock Exchange because I cannot pay the dividend that justifies my getting the money at the right price. I cannot locate my plant where the market is."
The Government have swept away all those constraints—

Mrs. Renée Short: Industries still cannot survive, can they?

Mr. Bulmer: —and that is important. I also believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in his Budget to concentrate on one point. Minimum lending rate had to come down as it did, and those in industry must have confidence that it has further to fall. This is crucial in my constituency. As the interest rate falls, the mortgage rate falls. This is good for a return of confidence to the carpet industry, which is the major industry in Kidderminster.

Mr. Michael Latham: It is also important for house building.

Mr. Bulmer: As my hon. Friend says, it is also extremely important for house building. If interest rates go down to the point at which large companies can raise long-term money at between 10 and 12 per cent., they will do so. If interest rates can be reduced to single figures, many smaller companies will have the confidence to raise money. At no time during the period of office of the previous Government was it possible for companies to borrow money at a fixed term at what could remotely be described as a commercially sensible rate. I look forward to the Government creating a situation in which that can happen.
My constituents tell me continually that there is now an enormous contrast between the rate of price increases in the private sector and those in the public sector. Behind all the public sector bills that land on our desks, there is a monopoly union and a monopoly supplier. I hope that people involved in those industries will reflect on their relatively privileged positions compared with the private sector. It is impossible in equity to defend the level of

redundancy pay that can be expected by my constituents in the carpet industry against that enjoyed in the public sector. I hope that the TUC will think hard about this matter.
I believe, however, that the Government have been insensitive in adjusting their energy pricing, against the background of all the other increases that have been coming forward from the public sector. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, in his Budget Statement, gave some indication that action would be taken. I hope that it will not be a case of too little, too late.
I have touched already on the damage done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government in the way that he cut public spending during his period of office. He allowed far too much of the burden to fall on the private sector. I look to the Government to ensure that public sector spending, in so far as it grows at all, grows on capital account and not on revenue account. I look for a continual move towards a broader balance between the private sector and the public sector. That can only benefit my constituents.
We have now a record number of school leavers. I welcome the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to see that more money is available to provide useful training, and, I should like to hope, skilled training, for those leaving school. I believe that some skill shortages could develop even by next year. I hope that those in the Department of Employment will read carefully the recent research carried out by Warwick university, which identified six major growth sectors. I hope that the Government will ensure that training, so far as possible, is directed to those areas where jobs will be available in the future. I hope, too, that the trade unions will show a greater flexibility in their attitude to apprenticeships. The late Ernest Bevin remarked that after the age of 18 he could become Foreign Secretary but could not become a craftsman in his own union. That situation needs urgent attention.
I welcome the help that the Budget is giving to small businesses. This is the only way to create jobs. I believe that when the recession ends, many large companies will not take on more people. They will look outside for services. They recognise how difficult it is to shed labour once they have become overmanned. It has to be recognised, however, that many small businesses have to be started to produce even two or three potentially big businesses in the years ahead.
Anything that the Government can do to encourage small businesses has the support of all Conservative Members, and certainly of my constituents. At a time when, in my constituency, the carpet industry has lost 6,000 jobs, small businesses have been putting back jobs in hundreds, albeit that they have been lost in thousands. As the recession ends, I look to those small businesses to begin to fill the gap. For that to happen the Government need to stay on course and continue to reduce the rate of inflation.
Many matters lie within our own hands. Two do not, and they are vital to the restoration of full employment. The first is the recycling of the Arab oil surplus, and the second is to see that the less developed countries receive super Marshall aid-type schemes that allow them to buy our manufactures. I hope that the Government will see that everthing is done to encourage those two developments.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: I was most interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). I have heard him discuss these matters before. He will not expect me to agree with a good deal of what he said, but I was especially interested in his remarks about the increase in the number of school leavers that there will be in the coming years, and if he will bear with me I shall touch on that point later in my speech.
First, however, I want to emphasise that I have taken part in quite a number of debates on industry and unemployment. But, most importantly, I have listened carefully over many years to what Treasury Benches have had to say about these matters. They seem to me to chorus each time the same well-worn song. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether in this House or outside, always have a duet about encouraging the economy and stimulating the creation of wealth. A couple of weeks ago, on 16 March, the Secretary of State for Employment added his support in a solo about the West Midlands and the signs that the recession there was beginning to bottom out.
The same point was made today by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith), who said that there would be an upturn very soon. I hope that he is right. However, it is in complete contrast to what the CBI says in its forecast today. It gives the opposite view. It says that manufacturing output will carry on sliding, that it will be 20 per cent. below the 1979 level, and that unemployment is expected to follow that slide and to continue rising. So the reality is contrary to what we hear from the Government. Unemployment is biting very deeply into the West Midlands and all the indications are that it will continue to do so over the coming years. Job losses there have increased more traumatically since this Government came to office than they have in any other region.
I shall not go on to enumerate the picture in the West Midlands, because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) did that expertly, but I want to talk a little about my own locality because, in a debate such as this, we tend to relate our speeches to the areas that we represent and to the people who sent us here to represent them.
I speak for a moment about the Sandwell and Dudley travel-to-work area, where there are now 65 people chasing every job. Job losses are occurring there at an appalling rate. Today, 37,000 people are registered as unemployed in that one area.
There is one aspect of unemployment in all this which to me stands out like a sore thumb. It is the present and future prospects for young people. As I see it, of all the damage that has been inflicted during the short lifetime of this Government, the bruising of a generation of young people is very worst feature.
Hot off the press only last week from the Manpower Services Commission came the publication "Labour Market Trends in the Midland Region". It is an assessment of labour trends between now and 1983. It makes very interesting though very depressing reading. It warns that further job losses are to come in the manufacturing sector and that further considerable increases in unemployment are inevitable with a further worsening in the area's position. So today the CBI has simply joined the

Manpower Services Commission in making nonsense of the statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on 16 March that the recession was just about bottoming out.
Even on the training of apprentices the report recently published tells us that private industry has reduced the number of apprenticeships in all industries to below the 1979 level and that engineering apprenticeships alone are now down by one-third. The report goes on to say that if the current reduced rate of intake persists the number of trained craftsmen available by the end of the planning period—1983—will be insufficient to meet any upturn in the economy.
In my area the young are particularly vulnerable, because the labour demand for them is falling at a faster rate than in the region as a whole. At the same time, projections indicate that the total number of young people reaching school leaving age will be on the increase over the coming years. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. In my area it will rise over the coming years to a total of 11,500 new people coming on to the labour register each year. What is very frightening about this is the indication in the assessment that they will be joining a labour force in an area where unskilled and semi-skilled jobs have contracted enormously. In circumstances such as these there are obvious implications—social and economic—for their job opportunities and their future.
Last year, when I talked to the careers staff in Sandwell, we concluded that we had a very bad deal. We found that we had only 40 vacancies on record and 950 people to squeeze into them. That is not the case today. In 12 months the number of vacancies has fallen to 14, and we now have 2,700 youngsters looking for work. What is more, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, they will be joined in only a few weeks by the Easter school leavers. In our joint area they represent an additional 500 to that human factor.
Training and work experience in engineering and manufacturing in the Black Country towns are all-important. Some training is going on, but not enough. The overwhelming number of young people in my area have had their training interrupted, and that has happened for two general reasons. The first is that training officers tend to be among the first to be made redundant. When redundancies occur they tend to be some of the first to go. Secondly, the amount of work experience on employers' premises has diminished. More than 500 places have been suspended recently by companies which find themselves with insufficient adult workers left to carry out the supervision. My hon. Friend the Member for Lady wood mentioned Patent Shaft, a very important firm which was in my constituency until it got the chop one Friday. In that one firm alone 100 craft apprentices were made redundant. Some of them were being trained in specialist furnace fabrication. That type of training can be carried out by only one other firm in the country.
It is difficult to follow the career courses of those 100 young people and to discover exactly what happened to their careers. I have done as much research as I can with the careers officer, and I discover that many of them have moved down market. They have grabbed any jobs that have been going. In other words, they have become underemployed. That continuing process has increased the problems for young people who are less qualified. It has been a matter of squeezing out the less qualified and, in doing so, increasing social tensions and other problems.
I want to discuss some of those social problems, and I do so first by relating my remarks to the condemnatory statement made today by academics from British universities. It is no good the Government joking or making jibes about that. What the academics say is serious, and attention should be paid to them.
In addition to condemning the Government's economic therories they now threaten our social and political stability. Those raised voices, which have been joined by those in the CBI, the TUC and many other organisations, should be listened to. Never has there been a period in history when the Government have been more roundly and authoritatively condemned.
I relate my argument to my own area, because this is an important issue to people who live in Sandwell. Ten days ago, I was approached by the chairman of the local citizens' advice bureau. The object was to seek more money for the bureau. Even with voluntary help, the increased case work with which it must deal, resulting chiefly from unemployment, has caused greater pressure than ever before. Its work load is increasing as a result of the social problems created by unemployment.
Last Friday I looked at the local newspaper, which is a responsible regional newspaper. An article on the front page said that suicide calls to the Samaritans in the Black Country towns had nearly doubled. I hope that that does not put the usual smile on the faces of Conservative Members. According to the director of the Samaritans, the stark conclusion to be drawn from this enormous increase in calls for help is that many peope feel worthless and view the future without hope. He added:
Young people see their fathers on the dole and they can see no future for themselves. It is all extremely worrying".
The annual report of the Samaritans for the Black Country area, which many Labour Members represent, states:
Those who come to us appear to feel that they have nothing of value to offer to the community and, more so that the community is breaking faith with them. There are no signs that things are getting any better and as the recession continues problems will mount".
Voluntary organisations know that the problems are mounting. We see that every day through letters and various deputations, yet the Government tell us that there is no alternative strategy. The Prime Minister tells us that only her policies will succeed in the long run. Those are cruel and arrogant claims for anyone to make. Moreover, they are patently false.
A month ago, in a London Weekend Television broadcast, the Prime Minister tried to argue that unemployment was costing the country £2·4 billion. However, she did not take loss of taxation into account. In fact, her figures were wrong.
An unemployed man with two children costs the country more than £6,000 a year. If we take lost tax revenue into account we find that unemployment benefits are costing us about £8 billion a year and producing nothing. That does not take into account the cost of lost productivity. Therefore, the cost of all unemployment benefits outstrip the revenue from North Sea oil. There must be borrowings to make up the shortfall. The Prime Minister is also wrong when she tries to argue that those resources are insufficient to create the necessary jobs.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked about the Opposition's alternative policies. I remind

Conservative Members that a Conservative Government are in charge of Britain's economy. They should have an alternative policy, but I shall try to make some suggestions. The Government consistently fail to distinguish between capital spending and current spending. Spending for investment is just what the country needs, yet the Government fail to make the crucial distinction between money for investment and money for consumption.
If it is right that economic recovery will occur if private sector companies borrow to invest, I must be convinced that disaster will follow if British Telecom or British Rail also borrow to invest.
An alternative lies in using the nation's wealth for huge investment programmes to rescue industry. Most of it should be put into the public sector and used for electrifying the railways, spending on gas pipelines, renewing outworn sewerage and, above all, investment in construction. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West said, it should be used to get people off the housing waiting lists.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: rose—

Miss Boothroyd: I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
In the process, much of that cash will flow into private industry, such as the engineering sectors of the Black Country and the small companies there which supply the accessories. It would flow into the small firms, which we all want to help. That goes some way towards an alternative which the Government will not face. They deal in faith rather than fact. There is work to do and there are men and women available to do it. They must be brought together.

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Miss Boothroyd: I am sorry, but many other hon. Members wish to speak. If the hon. Gentleman is patient I am sure that he will be able to make his point in his own time and not in my time.
As I was saying, those men and women and that work must be brought together. While we wait for an economic upturn, the unused labour of working people who could produce the country's wealth is not piling up to our credit to be used at a later date. It is running to waste.
As today's censure on the Government by the CBI and those in British universities indicates, other alternatives must be examined. The policies now being pursued threaten the very social and political stability of this country. It is time that the Government addressed themselves to that problem.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) will excuse me if I do not follow her argument. However, I disagree with her suggestion that we should take notice of the academics, for that is possibly the attitude that has harmed the nation for a number of years. We should perhaps take note of more practical ideas than those being advanced by those academics.
My constituency has the highest level of unemployment in the West Midlands, and in the whole of the Midlands


with the exception of Corby. In fact, in numbers, a few thousand fewer are unemployed in Corby than in The Wrekin constituency.
As hon. Members will know, I also represent a marginal seat. If Labour Members think that will convince me that I should become an ally they are in for a surprise. The pledges that we gave in 1979 and the strategy that we have followed since then were those we were elected to carry out.

Mr. Bill Homewood: The hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency, which I understand has the highest level of travel-to-work unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom, with one exception. The hon. Gentleman seems to question that. I should like him to put me right, because it is what I intend to say in my speech.

Mr. Hawksley: My point is that there are more people out of work in The Wrekin than in Corby, although there is a higher percentage in Corby, because fewer people live in the area. We in our part of the country could possibly agree with the hon. Gentleman on certain points.
Unemployment in my area is running at 17 per cent. To that will be added 1,000 GKN workers in the not-too-distant future. The BKL factory is to close under an announcement made only last week. In those circumstances the level of unemployment is unacceptable, but who does one blame? It is clear that Labour Members blame the Government. I do not. We in the Midlands cannot be sheltered from the winds of the world recession. We must recognise the seriousness of the international scene. In Belgium unemployment is 50 per cent. higher than in Britain. France and Germany are repatriating some of their immigrant workers to keep their unemployment levels down. In America there is a growing realism that that country must move over to a policy of sound money. It is against that background that we should view the world recession as causing our high unemployment.
In 1979—when many Conservative seats were won in the West Midlands—we were elected not to go for the easy option of borrowing and printing money. That had been tried by successive Governments and it had failed. In 1979 the electorate knew that a Conservative Government would go for medicine that in the short term would hurt but in the long term would cure. The medicine is still hurting. Partly because of the intensity of the world recession, it is hurting more than many people thought it would. But we cannot get out of our troubles by printing money. The nation is currently borrowing the equivalent of £240 for every man, woman and child in it. If people wish to see effect given to the views of the TUC and the CBI, the onus is upon them to say where the money will come from. The money does not exist. It will come only from efficient and profitable industry moving, as we hope it will very shortly, out of the world recession.
I turn to a more local issue—in particular, the suggestions made in 1979 that a Conservative Government would make public expenditure cuts that would kill many of our areas. I want to paint a different picture of what is actually happening in the West Midlands generally and in my constituency in particular. At the 1979 election, my opponent contended that in supporting me and a Conservative Government the electorate would be supporting the death of the new town corporation in Telford. We have seen not a bit of that. The board has been strengthened and its life has been extended. We were told

that there would be no motorway connecting Te [ford and the West Midlands. That has proved not to be true. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has not only put out the contract for the tender, but has arranged for the work to begin in June. That is different from what happened under the Labour Government, when the motorway project was beset by one delay after another.
During the Labour Government's period of office a hospital was closed in the constituency. We have how been given the go-ahead for the purchase of a site and for the training of staff to work in a new hospital. That w ill create many jobs in the area when the hospital is ready to open. How different that is from events under the previous Government, who closed the local hospital at Cosford in the face of spirited opposition from many people in the area.
An Inland Revenue computer has now been located in our area and will start operations shortly. In spite of the tale of woe told by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) about GKN Sankey, the Government have given the company a defence contract for an Army personnel carrier. We should be thankful for that example of Government help for the West Midlands. Still on the defence side, there is also to be an expansion of COD Donnington, which is creating jobs and improving the local position considerably.
It is childish for anyone to criticise the Government for not doing enough. I hope that I have managed to convince hon. Members that the Government have done a great deal. Let me deal, however, with the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about Telford's application to be considered for development area status. That would be an important event for the area. Our 17 per cent. level of unemployment will rise to nearly 20 per cent. when the GKN Sankey redundancies work through into the system. At the Madeley exchange the level of male unemployment is currently 32·9 per cent. That demonstrates the seriousness of the position. Of the 29 special development areas, only four will have higher unemployment than that.
I do not like the idea of development areas because they distort economic factors, and many people in the West Midlands realize—

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Telford were given development area status, it would be particularly disadvantageous to Wolverhampton?

Mr. Hawksley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Let me in due course give other examples of how regional policies affect my area and other parts of the West Midlands in that way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment recently visited my area. He saw at first hand how bad the position was and he gave public support to our campaign for development area status. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred to the effects of such measures on other areas. My constituency is already suffering from the effects of the Wrexham special development area. Jobs that the Telford development corporation had expected to obtain have been lost because those creating them discovered that they would get grants if they went to Wrexham.
I agree with those who want to abolish the development areas but while they exist it is important to ensure that the help they provide goes to those in greatest need. It is on


that ground that I claim that status for my area. EEC aid can at the moment be given only to areas which enjoy some development area status. May we have confirmation from the Government tonight that they can do nothing to arrange for European aid to be considered for a wider area? Certain Members of the European Parliament suggest that it is possible for us to decide where EEC aid should be directed. I hope that we may be told tonight whether the West Midlands can be considered as a recipient of European aid.
Another of our problems concerns regional policy. I bear no malice to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), who has succeeded in getting an enterprise zone located in Dudley. We in Telford would have liked it. We thought that we had won the argument, but unfortunately one of the conditions was that we should carry the support of the local authority. The Socialist-controlled Wrekin district council was flatly opposed to the idea. It seems that the Socialists in Telford are different from those in other parts of the West Midlands. In some other parts the Socialists were on bended knees begging for the enterprise zone to be given to their areas. Instead, it was given to Dudley. That action will increase Telford's problems.
It is therefore important that when the delegation of councillors, industrialists and trade unionists visits my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry in the first week of April our case should be considered seriously. If we could develop a prosperous area on the edge of the conurbation, that would help the surrounding areas and would be of great benefit to many people who are outside the area we are discussing.
In asking for development area status we do not ask for permanent charity. The Government should consider giving the area such status for five years to prevent its being worse off than special development areas. That status would help us until the benefits of the motorway could be seen. Once the motorway has been built and industrialists realise that it is not just an idea they will have confidence to come to Telford.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: I have been following the debate intently. My hon. Friend said that his constituency was worse off. Does he agree that one of the reasons for that and the horrific unemployment figures was Government policy between 1975 and 1978, when 118,000 jobs were taken from the West Midlands by Government intervention? Does he agree that many of those jobs were not real jobs? They went to my hon. Friend's constituency and now he has to tackle the problem.

Mr. Hawksley: I do not accept that jobs that came to Telford denuded other areas. I have mentioned what the Labour Government failed to do for the West Midlands. We needed help then. I sometimes agree with hon. Members who attack the principle of new towns. There is agreement that the third-generation new towns are the last. However, they are with us. A commitment was given by the incoming Government in 1979 that the new towns would be completed. They must be allowed to run their course.
I finish as I began, on a note of confidence in the Government's policies. I believe that the Government's overall economic strategy is right. However, if they are to

retain their regional policy they must ensure that aid is given to areas with the greatest need. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that with its high unemployment my constituency is an area of greatest need.

Mr. Clement Freud: I shall not pursue the claims by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), but I make no excuse for contributing briefly to the debate. The Liberal Party does not have a Member in the Midlands at present, but my constituency is a historically low unemployment area. The Minister said that the Midlands area was not as bad as some areas. That is no relief to the 2,053 unemployed people in Wisbech, chasing 56 vacancies, or to the 883 people who were unemployed in March, when that figure was only 377 when the Government came to power. It is no relief to the 808 unemployed people in Ely, 139 of whom have had no job for over a year.
Most of those people are unemployed not as a result of five years of Labour misrule, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) said, but because of the Conservative Government. They are in their fourth six-month period in office, and they predicted that the rightness of their policies would begin to become evident by now.
The Minister talked of the Government's encouragement of industry. What encouragement is being given, and what could be given? The Government could do more. They have given some complicated help to small industries, and that is welcome. They have also created enterprise zones. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that for every job created in an enterprise zone one is jeopardised in a non-enterprise zone.
The Government would do well to examine short-term enterprise zones on the basis that Lord Rothschild used to sack his chef every three years. He believed that if his chef had not made a fortune after three years he never would make any money. If an enterprise zone existed for three years it would provide an incentive to start up in business without making life difficult for others.
We should remember what other countries are doing to encourage industry. The Minister would be wise to examine what happens in France. People there are given a six-month advance of unemployment benefit so that they can buy jobs for themselves by creating some type of industry. In Italy, no employer's contribution is charged for job creation. They are sensible ways to help.
Pension funds must be encouraged to invest in small businesses. Many small businesses do not have the expertise of the pension funds. Industry should not be encouraged simply because of the need for employment in a specific area. The Government might consider encouraging industry to grow round seats of learning, such as the universities and polytechnics, so that the applied knowledge could fan out and create something new.
A company in my constituency made its entire work force redundant last week, and 96 jobs were lost. The company is losing about £200,000 a year. It is part of the Howden group, the profits of which last year went up from £6·5 million to £7·5 million. I am sure that it would not have closed the Wisbech offshoot, which makes hydraulic valves, without the most careful searching of its accounts. It could not have been difficult for the Government, who are faced with an unemployment bill about three times as


high as the losses of that company, to give the encouragement that the Minister said he was giving to industry.
Tax concessions are not available. We hoped that the Budget would bring relief from the employer's contribution surcharge. That would have helped the Howden group to keep Andrew Fraser of Wisbech going. Instead, 96 jobs have gone and £5,500 per man and woman will have to be found in unemployment benefit. Not much encouragement would have been needed to make the company think again. If we are to believe the Government when they talk of deep regret at the unemployment figures, for heaven's sake they must consider constructive job creation. The Government's energy pricing policy is no help.
In Japan, people look ahead to the next boom. To what is the Minister looking? The public sector borrowing requirement is not a divine instrument. Indeed, nothing that can be estimated within only 50 per cent. of reality has much divinity.
Does the Minister intend to invest money in British Rail, in the Channel tunnel, or in communications? Hon. Members are aware of the plight of our communications industry. One has only to try a House of Commons telephone and get two wrong numbers for every right one, or to hear a boring voice saying "Lines from London are engaged" to understand the industry's plight. The updating of the communications industry has to be done sooner or later. While we have the current crisis, why not have it sooner rather than later?
Young people are growing up with no work experience, and that will have grave consequences for future industrial relations and society in general. In my constituency, about 30 per cent. of the under-18s have never had a job. A period of unemployment used to be characterised by frantic job searching. Now it cannot be long before, in many places, what has traditionally been a hiatus has to be faced as a lasting condition for many younger and abler people.

Mr. Michael Latham: I thought that I was to be the first hon. Member not from the West Midlands to speak, coming as I do from the East Midlands, but it turns out that I am second, because the last speaker—the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)—does not represent the Midlands at all. Nevertheless, he made an interesting speech, and I am glad to have the opportunity to follow it. I am also very pleased to see the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who I understand is to reply to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I wish him every success, in a bipartisan spirit. No doubt he will continue to make many speeches from the Opposition Benches.
I want to give the present unemployment position in my constituency. As from 12 March, the Melton Mowbray jobcentre had 1,399 registered unemployed, representing 9·9 per cent. Since December, the figure has risen by 202, of which 120 came from lay-offs at the British Steel Corporation factory at Holwell. A further 80 redundancies have since been announced by Holwell, and these will be reflected in the April figures. There are only 44 registered vacancies. The Melton figure is 1 per cent. above the Leicestershire average and 0·6 per cent. above the East Midlands average, though it is slightly below the national average.
Many of my constituents live in an area covered by the Loughborough agency. There, I am glad to say, the position is better. The unemployed percentage is 6·3, and last month vacancies rose from 120 to 128. Nevertheless, the figures are bad, though my constituency as a whole is one where unemployment has not been a problem in the past.
All hon. Members are particularly concerned about youth unemployment. I met the principal of Melton Mowbray college of further education—Mr. Pobjoy—last Friday, and I am also in touch with the area careers officer, Mr. Goddard. Although some local employers have responded extremely well to the challenge of the youth opportunities programme—indeed, Pedigree Pet foods Limited had a scheme of its own, involving 25 youngsters—much still needs to be done.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me whether the Easter guarantee will be honoured in Melton Mowbray. I sincerely hope so. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me in that regard, either this evening or by letter.
We need more YOP sponsors. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the arrangements whereby young people have to pay the first £4 of any travel expenses. The careers service tells me that this allowance, which is very low for rural areas, and lower still as a result of the increased petrol prices following the Budget, is making it almost more worthwhile for a young person to stay at home on supplementary benefit than to participate in a YOP scheme in Melton Mowbray. Clearly, if that is happening it is most unsatisfactory. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the matter careful consideration.
I realise that the recession is the main problem, and that my hon. Friend cannot wave a magic wand to make it go away. I am sorry that the Budget did not give more help to industry, particularly to help people to stay in work, whether through the short-time working compensation scheme or through a wider job release scheme, rather than find projects for unemployed people, useful as those projects are. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to bring forward further proposals in this regard in the next few months.
Unemployment is already intolerably high. Some of the figures being bandied about, of 3 million, 3·7 million or 4 million unemployed, are not to be contemplated. The public expenditure White Paper made the gloomy prediction of 2·7 million unemployed, excluding school leavers, in 1982–83 and 1983–84. Those figures, which assume a higher level of unemployment in two and a half years' time than we have now—supposedly in the depth of the recession—are simply not acceptable. Ministers should make it plain that if those are the underlying assumptions—let alone nightmarish figures like 3 million or more—the assumptions will have to be looked at again.
The economy of Leicestershire is well spread. That is why the county has avoided the worst of the storms in past years. At present, there are some brighter signs. Clearly, private house building is recovering sharply throughout the county and country. That is confirmed by the latest survey of the House Builders Federation. By holding clown its precept increase to a very modest 4 per cent. this year, Leicestershire county council has eased the crushing burdens on private industry. In that regard, I must point out that there is great resentment in private business about price increases in the public sector, some of which, such as those relating to telephones, are blamed directly on the


Government. If the net result of the system of external financing limits is to force up charges of nationalised industries, already in surplus, at the expense of jobs in the private sector, it is high time that we changed the financing system, whether by wholesale privatisation or by taking capital sector borrowing out of the PSBR.
I congratulate Leicestershire county council on playing its part in holding down rates. I welcome, too, the facilities of the small firms centre in Leicester, and I am delighted to see that there is to be a Leicestershire week in Saarbrucken, in Germany, next week, where much of the county's attractions will be displayed to our German friends. I hope that it goes very well and produces more work for our people, both in exports and in revenue from tourism.
The county, which is at the heart of England and which has the M1 running through it, has excellent communications. I hope that the electrification of the Midland railway line to Leicester will go ahead. The project could provide considerable benefits, as well as providing more work.
I should like to say a brief word about two traditional industries of the East Midlands, both of which are in serious straits. I refer, of course, to footwear manufacturing and hosiery and knitwear. The fact that they are traditional industries does not mean that they are not modern or inventive. Quite the contrary; their performance is excellent. The footwear industry is badly affected by the strength of the pound. The level of import penetration is high, and Britain is the easiest place in the world into which to import shoes. An importer can go to the British Shoe Corporation in Leicester and then to Northampton and Manchester and see most of the shoe trade in a day and a half. If our domestic industry is to be maintained we shall have to take an increasingly hard line on imports.
I can imagine what the French would do in such circumstances. They would create an elaborate inspection and testing agency—as they have done for imported doors—or some other bureaucratic or slow-moving obstacle to imports, or they would simply breach the EEC rules, as they did with sheep.
At the same time, I hope that retailers, especially those with enormous buying powers, such as the British Shoe Corporation, will ensure that their purchasing policy is directed towards maintaining a viable domestic manufacturing capacity, not only in the corporation's own factories—where it makes 20 per cent. of its shoes—but among its suppliers. After all, the BSC owns Saxone, Dolcis, Manfield, Freeman Hardy and Willis, Trueform and Curtess. It also used to own Benefit, Phillips, and Lilley and Skinner, which it has since merged with the others. Its orders can literally make or break a supplier or manufacturer.
Any such giant needs to have an exceptional sense of retraint and responsibility in its purchasing and pricing policy. Of course, it must also remain keenly price competitive, in the interests of its employees as well as of its customers or shareholders. But the House will look to the BSC always to act in the widest interests of the consumer that it serves and British industry and employment, with which it is involved. I am sure that the company will not disappoint us, and that the Office of Fair Trading will bear this issue closely in mind. While the

pound stays high, importing is fairly easy and exporting is hard, and all sectors of the footwear industry need to stick together for its survival in the years to come.
Finally, I want to say a word about the Leicestershire hosiery and knitwear industry, which has had to shed many employees over the past 18 months. Only today, along with other Leicestershire hon. Members, I received a letter from the county council chief executive expressing the concern of the county council about the state of the industry. The council says that 6,000 people have lost their jobs and 8,000 out of a labour force of 40,000, are on the short-time working compensation scheme in the industry in Leicestershire.
In a recent letter to me, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly said that she was impressed by the improvement in textiles generally—including hosiery and knitwear—in both their efficiency and productivity, and by the industry's good labour relations record and export achievements. There are 400 quotas and other restraints on textiles. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend felt able to confirm the Government's intention to press for a tough successor arrangement when the present multi-fibre arrangement comes up for renegotiation later this year. I hope that the EEC will do all that it can to plug loopholes in the MFA—we all know that there are loopholes—and that it will set its own house in order. Some EEC countries, such as Italy, which use child labour or cheap female outwork labour, are also trading unfairly. Ministers should pursue this matter strongly at EEC level.
More needs to be done. The temporary short-time working compensation scheme is essential to the textile industry, which had received £31 million up to December 1980, let alone what it has received since. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to keep the scheme going at a reasonable level.
I am well aware that Leicestershire has not suffered as badly as some other areas in the present recession. It is well placed to take advantage of the upturn, when it comes, but far too many resources are having to go into unemployment benefit at present. That is necessary but unproductive expenditure. Let us see more people in jobs. I hope that the Government will increasingly direct their attention to that end.

Mrs. Renee Short: Every Opposition speaker and most speakers from the Government Benches, including the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), who is not from the West Midlands, have spoken of their serious dissatisfaction with the present position, about which the Government seem to be so complacent. The Minister's speech was smug, complacent and unconstructive on ways of dealing with the problems that face us.
The major problem, surely, is the Government's refusal effectively and speedily to mobilise' our resources of human skill, energy and talent, together with the country's financial resources, to remedy the present situation not only in the West Midlands but in many other parts of the country. I find that refusal incomprehensible. I cannot understand how the Government can sit back and make the same statements as they made at the time of the election about how they would deal with the country's problems. They see those problems become progressively worse as each month goes by, yet they refuse to change course. What hold does the Prime Minister have over other


members of the Cabinet and juniors Ministers that results in their refusing to join together to say "So far and no further. We must change course"?
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), who opened the debate very effectively, said that the West Midlands region was fast becoming a wasteland, as firm after firm—many of them established for generations—disappeared. Many others of my hon. Friends also spoke of this problem. To survive, we must move fast and find a solution.
We have seen no significant move by the Government to encourage the development of viable new industries. If they have developed, they have not come to the West Midlands. We see no encouragement of viable small firms, no energy or drive put into the development of new technology in the region. There is no vision, and little hope is offered for the future. All that we see is a continuation of the present position. Hon. Members have pointed out the possible social, political and economic consequences.
Do the Government ever study what anyone abroad does, apart from looking at the EEC? Have they been made aware of what the Danes have done to stimulate industry? Denmark is a small country, with a small population and no material resources. By the Prime Minister's standards it should be poor and backward, but it is one of the most industrially advanced in Europe. Most Danish firms employ fewer than 500 people, so none of them is very large. The Danish Government have played a leading role in sponsoring a small-firms technology institute, similar to the Schumacher centre. Much development and innovation is going on, and that is what we want to happen here.
In Japan there are 7 million small firms with only five or six employees. All those firms have developed since the war. The Japanese Government stimulated the growth of small firms by giving tax relief on modernisation schemes and on consultancy services, so that there was available proper consultancy advice for the new firms that were starting up.
The major Japanese companies use the small firms to supply components. There is a strong link between small firms and large firms. For example, Toyota has 140 direct suppliers, which draw upon 40,000 small firms contributing 60 per cent. of Toyota's parts. That gives a guarantee of employment and survival to many small firms.
What do the Government intend to do for the thousands of skilled workers now on the dole, and for the thousands of school leavers with no training who face a grim future? The Secretary of State's announcement last November of special measures to enable them to obtain vocational training may have raised their hopes. The director of special programmes in the Manpower Services Commission, Geoffrey Holland, has said:
Fourty-four per cent. of British young people enter work—or remain unemployed—with little or no training, compared with only nine per cent. who do so in West Germany, and we have the smallest proportion—24 per cent.—compared with other industrial nations in full-time vocational training.
What will the Minister do about that? Half our unemployed young people are under 25 years of age. By the time they reach the age of 18 or 19 some are married and have children. Therefore, a large proportion of the young unemployed families face a dire future.
Since 1974 there has been a ninefold increase in the numbers who remain unemployed for more than 12 months. The position demands not talk and smug remarks by Ministers but action, determination and—inevitably—resources. None of those is forthcoming from the Government.
There are considerable problems of education if the new small firms and the community enterprises are to get off the ground. I do not believe that young people want to lead idle, aimless lives. They all want to have jobs, to earn money and to take their place in society, but they often fear the alienation that comes from working in huge, impersonal units, where they feel overwhelmed and disregarded as human beings by management and often by those with whom they work. They feel themselves to be tiny, unimportant cogs in an enormous organisation.
Our young people should be encouraged to learn what they can do to relieve the problems that face the world today—major problems of food shortage, energy conservation and the delivery of good health. Teaching must take all those problems on board and must encourage skills in those subjects as well. It must deal with the problems of the everyday lives of our people and of other peoples, especially in the developing world.
We must encourage the doers and adventurous among our young people. We do not do that anywhere near enough. We tend to offer rather orthodox and often very boring opportunities to young people in their work experience schemes and training. We need to be much more adventurous and rather more unorthodox than we have been so far. We must have a change of policy away from the sterile and destructive attitude of the Government. If the Prime Minister will not turn, the Cabinet must insist on a turn being made.
The latest count of unemployed school leavers in the Wolverhampton employment area shows that between 1977 and 1981 there has been an increase of three and a half times in the number of young persons under 18 unemployed. In the West Midlands as a whole, there has been an increase from 2,562 in 1977 to 8,285 this year.
The rot appears not only in industry; it appears in the National Health Service. A large number of posts are vacant at every level in the National Health Service throughout the West Midlands simply because the regional health authorities do not have the resources and the money to pay the salaries. This applies to consultants, doctors and nurses, as well as to other staff. If those jobs remain unfilled, patients suffer. In addition to suffering from unemployment and short-time working, people are suffering from long hospital waiting lists. I refer especially to the increasing number of patients who are suffering from mental illness induced by the disastrous economic position that faces all of us. Those patients are having to wait even longer for help.
The construction industry could do a great deal to generate jobs. An enormous amount of new industrial building is needed in the West Midlands. Many hundreds of jobs could be created if a go-ahead could be given for new industrial building. If local authorities were able to start their house building and house modernisation programmes again that could also help the building industry.
The CBI—some of us on the Labour Benches had the pleasure of meeting its representatives in Birmingham last Friday—is forecasting 2 million unemployed for the foreseeable future. That is a very dreary prospect. But if


the measures that I have suggested could be adopted we could change that rather doom-laden attitude and regenerate industry and employment in the West Midlands.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give us some new ideas and will not repeat the same old jejune economic arguments which hon. Members on both sides of the House and the country at large are sick and tired of hearing. Those ideas do not get us any further. We want new ideas. We want some of the ideas that have been put forward from the Labour Benches—and, indeed, from the Conservative Benches—to be adopted by the Government. We want Ministers to tell us what is to be done to regenerate all the regions that are suffering so much from the Government's policies—and particularly the West Midlands region, which all of us care about very much.

Mr. John Stokes: I welcome the serious tone of the debate. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about unemployment in the Midlands. The Midlands has never really suffered in this way before. We may differ about the remedies but we are united in deploring the human tragedies involved.
I remember the unemployment of the early 1930s, when I was a boy, and the Jarrow marchers. Fortunately, the poverty and hardship are not as great now as they were then. Some of the unemployed are now able to augment their incomes—in some cases significantly—by doing all kinds of jobs, which are now called "moonlighting".
Nevertheless, I know only too well the anxieties and the sense of helplessness that afflict many of the unemployed—the young leaving school, worried about getting a job at all; the middle-aged man with a wife and children to keep; and the older man who wonders whether he will be able to get another job before he reaches pension age at 65.
We must remember that the total work force now is much larger than it was in the 1930s. Not only has there been an increase in population; nearly 1 million extra women are now employed, compared with a decade ago. Many of these women are married, and their husbands are also earning. Even so, I hardly think that one can expect them to give up their jobs for the sake of unemployed men.
Obviously, in these times of heavy unemployment firms will consider early retirement where suitable, and the engagement of young persons in the place of those retiring, but these are only palliatives. The great question that we are debating today is whether the Government can do any more and whether industry is doing all it can to make itself as competitive as possible in world markets.
We all know why the present position has come about. The world is still in the deepest recession that it has experienced since 1929. The recession is deeper and has lasted longer than the Government and most people expected. Fortunately, there are now signs that the worst may be over and that we can look forward to a steady if slow recovery, from the summer onwards. Stock Exchange prices in the last week or two are pointing in that direction, and Stock Exchange investors are usually right in the longer term.
The recession has hit the engineering industry very hard, and engineering is the heart of the Midlands. One

does not wish to criticise hard-pressed employers when they are trying so energetically to climb out of the trough, but the twin evils of British industry—overmanning and low productivity—are, with the slump, the main causes of the loss of orders and, therefore, of high unemployment.
Another failure, which has not so far been mentioned in the debate and which is becoming generally more recognised in the engineering industry, is poor marketing and not sufficiently aggressive selling. The Midlands has always been able to manufacture products, but they have to be sold, and it is necessary to adopt a strongly market-oriented stance—to find out what the customer wants and then make it, rather than to hope to sell what has been produced for a long time.
I recognise that in some trades, such as steel, there has been such an appalling drop in demand—not only here but in Europe, and, indeed, world-wide—that no amount of selling techniques will be able to overcome the problems. There are, nevertheless, encouraging signs. There is now much more realism on the shop floor. Sometimes there is more realism and less moaning than I find among managers, directors and owners. People on the shop floor are now realistic about accepting sensible and moderate wage increases. They understand the importance of productivity, and of moving, if necessary, from one job to another in a firm. Managements are at last, albeit slowly, making greater efforts to keep their employees more fully informed of what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) made an extremely sound speech and pointed out something that everyone knows, namely, that during the past 10 years we have paid ourselves an increase of over 300 per cent. while productivity has increased by only 10 per cent. That is one of the root problems. The Midlands has a magnificent labour force, which is as good as any in the world. I spent Friday evening in Cradley, that splendid small chain-making town that has some of the best Englishmen in the country. Both they and the rest of the work force in the West Midlands need good leadership from everyone responsible, including charge hands, foremen, managers and directors. That is the most important factor.
That effort must be supported by good research and development, product planning, efficient marketing and the most cost-conscious means of production, followed by first-rate technical services. There is no substitute for such things if we are to compete with the French, Germans, Americans and Japanese. After all, this country has enormous brain power, but it must be harnessed to commercial success.
The Midlands is still too dependent on the motor industry, and wise firms will diversify as much as they can. We all remember that in the early years after the war motor manufacturers, anxious to take on labour, offered too high wages for too little work, coupled with poor supervision and bad discipline. For many years management in the motor industry lacked an "officer class".
However, I hope and believe that this is one of the matters that Sir Michael Edwardes is turning his attention to. British Leyland has slimmed down greatly, but even now it must increase production of the Mini Metro in order to enable a profit to be made on each car produced. At least two other volume cars are required. They must be models that the public at home and abroad and employees of British Leyland will want to buy. The recent white-collar


strike of employees working on the Metro could well hold back progress. Surely the shop stewards and union leaders, who have done such immense damage to the motor industry, have learnt their lesson.
In the West Midlands there are big companies, such as British Leyland, GKN, Tube Investments and ICI. I doubt whether such companies will ever recruit such large numbers of employees. The trend towards the microchip and automation will see to that. Small employers and the self-employed are, therefore, vital as the future recruiters of labour. That is one reason why the Government gave them so much help in the Budget.
Few hon. Members know what new industries will come forward. Such new industries may be developed in one of the small properties that new business men can now acquire. They may even be developed in a backyard or in a garage, with only one or two people to start with. That is how the plastics industry started in this country after the First World War. We need to encourage inventors and entrepreneurs as much as we can. It is they, and not the Government or the House, who will eventually produce the wealth that the country needs.
I know full well that industry has its complaints. I sometimes think that there are more complaints from management than from the shop floor. The high rate of exchange has fallen slightly, but industry must to some extent learn to live with a high pound. Interest rates have fallen and may fall a little further. Energy costs and the national insurance surcharge must be borne in mind. I hope that the Government will reconsider energy costs, particularly in terms of coking coal for foundries. English foundries are at a disadvantage compared with those in Europe.
Otherwise, I wholeheartedly support the Budget and the Government's determination to reduce inflation and to return to sound money. That must benefit industry and help employment more than anything else. It will inspire confidence and enable further investment to be made.
We must ensure that we make the best of present investment by shift work and proper utilisation of plant and machinery before we clamour for additional investment. I utterly condemn wildcat schemes of large public investment that have to be supported either by printing money or by further borrowing. It will lead only to further inflation and will nullify the sacrifices made.
The slump will come to an end and things will get better. The remedy lies not, as Opposition Members seem to think, in more Government action but in more determined action by industry. Many severe and long-lasting faults in British industry are at last being corrected. That alone will help towards big profits when the slump is over. It is profits that British industry requires, and with them there will be many more jobs for a great many people in British industry.

Mr. David Winnick: Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), it is not difficult for me to imagine him being just as complacent during the slump before the war. He might have told the House that things would get better and that hon. Members should not worry. He said that he was a supporter of the Budget. He is very much in a minority in the country at large. Indeed, if there were a free vote he would probably find himself in a minority in the House.

Mr Stokes: I was alive before the war and perhaps I was a little older than the hon. Gentleman. Things got better in the 1930s, as a result not only of rearmament but of a big boom in the South, when towns such as Watford and Slough became the great towns that they are today. There was an enormous leap in house building and it was possible to buy a good three-bedroomed house for £880.

Mr Winnick: I have been proved more correct than I had anticipated. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed the attitude that he would have adopted before the war. At that time millions of people rotted on the dole queues. His views are hardly likely to conflict with recorded history. The Conservative Party suffered a large and humiliating defeat in 1945 mainly because those who had never voted Labour before said that they did not want to return to the pre-war days.
It has been said that we shall have to accept the fact of a great many permanately unemployed people. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) mentioned last Friday's meeting of the CBI in the West Midlands, which I attended. The Opposition find unacceptable the idea that 1½ million or 2 million people might be permanently unemployed. If we were to accept such an idea we should be falling into the Government's trap of saying that there is no alternative and of accepting—as before the war—a large number of unemployed. People do not want to rot their lives away on the dole queue. We must continue to work for policies that will eliminate large-scale unemployment and see a return to the situation that prevailed in most parts of the country during the first 20 to 25 years after the Second World War.
The debate reflects the crisis in both the West and East Midlands. Nowhere else in Britain is unemployment rising so high as in the West Midlands. For example, in the past year adult unemployment in the United Kingdom has risen by 69 per cent. In the West Midlands the increase has been 102 per cent. and in the East Midlands 80 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards) was right when he said that before the war there were jobs in the West Midlands, and that people travelled from the most depressed areas to Birmingham and Coventry. But who would wish to go to the Midlands today to find work? With unemployment rising, there is no prospect of people coming into the region and finding relief from unemployment.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to school leavers. Last week in my constituency I met a girl who has now found a job. She told me about her difficulties in finding work. She applied for countless jobs. One job for which she applied—not a very distinguished job—was an assistant. in a jewellery shop. When she was interviewed she was told that there had already been 81 applicants for the job and that no doubt there would be others.
Those who leave school with few formal qualifications, who in better circumstances might have difficulty in finding work, are now having the utmost difficulty in getting any employment. When employers have the pick of the market, it is understandable that those who have reasonable qualifications but do not go on to higher education will be taken on for jobs that would otherwise go to school leavers such as I described. This tears at our social fabric. It undermines stability when school leavers with few formal qualifications have very little chance, of finding work however hard they may try. How many


months—indeed, years—will they have to remain on the dole queue? We must deal with this problem. It is one of the reasons for this debate today.
One in 10 of all jobs in manufacturing industry has been wiped out during the past year. I bore that point in mind when listening to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. The crisis in the West Midlands is the result of the Government's policies for manufacturing industry. There have been constant redundancies and closures, and extensive short-time working. Many firms in the Black Country have closed down completely. Some factories are unlikely to be reopened. The equipment is being dismantled and shipped abroad.
An official of one large trade union provided me with a list of many pages of redundancies that have occurred in his area during the past 12 months. There is sheet after sheet of firms that have declared redundancies and of firms that have closed down.
Of course we are worried about school leavers being unable to find work, but let us not forget men who, in many instances, have worked for a company for 25 years, have based their working lives on the reasonable assumption that they would continue with that firm, and have saved money and made arrangements for their retirement—men whose lives have been shattered in the past 12 to 18 months through redundancy. Some are unlikely to work again. When their unemployment benefit is exhausted, if they try to claim supplementary benefit, what will be the result? If they have more than £2,000, which is perhaps redundancy pay, or if their wives have money, they will not receive a penny. Their savings during their working lives are taken into consideration. That is shameful. It is humiliating for the Government to inflict such hardship on the victims of their own policies. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) referred to the report in the Express and Star about the large numbers who have taken or attempted to take their lives as a result of the depression in the region.
It is interesting to look at "Labour Market Trends in the Midland Region", a document prepared by the Manpower Services Commission. No doubt in replying to the debate the Minister will wish to refer to the MSC's report on the East and West Midlands. It says that
there are no signs that the rise in unemployment in the West Midlands is abating.
This informative report, which should be studied with care, concludes that
the West Midlands will be more affected by the recession than the country as a whole.
Some Conservative Members are optimistic. There are pages and paragraphs in this report—and there might have been one or two that I have overlooked—but it shows that there is little to be complacent about in the East or the West Midlands in the next few years.
The region has a narrow industrial base. Two weeks ago I took a deputation to see the Under-Secretary of State. I pointed out that in my borough in Walsall 48 per cent. of the working population were engaged in metal-based manufacture. In one part of the borough, Darlaston, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), 80 per cent. of all employment is in metal-based manufacture. This is a worrying matter.
Of course BL had to be rescued. Unemployment would have increased enormously if the previous Government

and the present Government had not acted to ensure the company's survival. We must not, however, continue to place so much reliance on metal-based manufacture, vehicles, and so on. We must be willing and able to take new growth industries into the region. That point was made by the deputation from the borough council a fortnight ago. We must recognise the need for new growth industries, and the Government should be willing to promote such industries coming into the region. If we continue to rely on metal-based manufacture, and if present policies continue, there is a strong possibility—I hope that I am proved wrong—of the West Midlands becoming a depressed area.
Last weekend the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made a disgraceful, inflammatory speech. It could only incite race hatred. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was right to describe it as being full of Munich beerhall remarks. He was referring to pre-war Munich. Acute economic insecurity, caused by the Government's extreme policies—obviously supported by the right hon. Member for Down, South—is the greatest danger to stability and our social fabric. The danger is presented not by ethnic minorities but by policies that produce mass unemployment. That is where the tensions come from, and such tensions can only be aggravated by speeches such as that made over the weekend by the right hon. Member for Down, South. The right hon. Gentleman represents a part of the United Kingdom that has seen so much violence in the past few years—to a certain extent that violence has been due to the policies pursued in Ulster over the past 50 or 60 years—and we do not need any lectures on social harmony from him.

Mr Dudley Smith: What has that to do with unemployment?

Mr. Winnick: A great deal, for reasons that I have stated.
It is a coincidence that 364 leading and distinguished economists have today condemned the Government's economic policies. There are those who will say that they differ from those economists, but Conservative Members cannot merely dismiss their arguments and claim that they do not know their subject. The economists say that the policies being pursued by the Government will deepen the recession, erode the industrial base of our economy and threaten its social and political stability. Moreover, they make the claim that the Prime Minister wants always to refute—namely, that there are alternative economic policies.
There is a tremendous need for investment on a much larger scale. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced his first Budget we were told that his policies would galvanise industry and promote the type of investment that has been lacking in the past. There has been little sign of that. We need more public services. Many Conservative Members condemn public expenditure, but it is necessary in many areas. If employees in the public sector were to be made redundant, which I should oppose, they would in most instances join the dole queue. That would lead to an increase in public sector borrowing powers.
It cannot be emphasised too much that by depriving people of jobs we are taking away demand. If there are firms in the West Midlands and elsewhere creating goods


for the home market and the British people do not have enough purchasing power to buy those goods, the recession is deepened and there is more deflation. Conservative Members are arguing that it is essential to reduce public services and to make those who work in them redundant. Such a policy will merely aggravate the present unemployment.
There have been no riots in the streets. It is true that mass unemployment, as we have now, has produced a milder attitude on the part of trade unions. The type of incomes policy now being pursued is the sort of policy that we had before the war. Those whose jobs are under threat take a different attitude towards wage increases and take less than the current rate of inflation.
I welcome evidence of a fight-back. There is to be a people's march in May. It is being organised by the North-West TUC. It will be from Liverpool to London. Boroughs in the West Midlands have said that they will give every hospitality to the marchers, provide overnight accommodation, and do what they can to boost the morale of those taking part. A trade union official, referring to this debate, asked me "What good will it do?" I replied "There is no guarantee that a debate in the House of Commons will necessarily do any more good than a march, demonstration or public meeting."
But it is the duty of the British people to ensure that there is not permanent unemployment. It is their duty to organise a fight back that challenges the Government's policies. If the Government refuse to change their policy, they must be forced out of office. The Government have inflicted tremendous hardship on ordinary people. Their record is, indeed, a rotten one.

Mr. Hal Miller: A common theme running through the debate has been the problem of school leavers and the training to be provided for them between leaving school and obtaining their first job. I shall expand upon that in the latter part of my remarks. First, I must deal with the cynical, hypocritical rubbish spouted by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The hon. Gentleman aped some earlier remarks. He and others who take a similar view do no service to the real problem of unemployment or to those who are suffering from it. Their cynical purpose is to try to make use of the unemployed for political ends. They are flattering them to deceive. They have produced no policy to ameliorate the lot of the unemployed. Their arguments are hypocritical because—this was admitted by the hon. Gentleman—a great deal of the decline in employment in the West Midlands has been due to the narrow industrial base and a worldwide recession in the motor-car industry.
Britain is uniquely dependent on its trade throughout the world. A very much higher proportion of its gross domestic product is derived from trade than that of any other country, and the West Midlands is uniquely dependent on manufacturing. Over 42 per cent. of its employment is in manufacturing. A unique feature of the West Midlands is its dependence, within the manufacturing sector, on the motor vehicle industry, and employment in that industry has declined over the past 10 years by over 100,000. That more than accounts for the decline in total employment in the West Midlands over the same period. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) advanced the valid argument that there are many more people in work than one might

suppose. It was only last year that we saw an absolute decline in the total number employed, and that was due to the decline in the motor vehicle industry.
That may be illustrated in another way by the relative decline in earnings in the industry over the same 10 years. At the beginning of that period the motor industry worker was the highest-paid worker in the land. His earnings are now below the national average. That is a sure sign of decline in the industry. One reason for our difficulties is that we have been locked into the industry by successive Governments. New developments have been diverted by regional policy and new industries have been prohibited from establishing themselves in the West Midlands.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry for getting rid of the industrial development certificate requirement—a decision which has allowed some development to take place in the West Midlands. I hope that he will further reduce the special development areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) said, in our area we are faced with the most rapidly rising unemployment in Britain. We have some of the highest levels of unemployment. There can be no justification for producing special incentives to divert businesses of all types to other areas.
I spoke on the motor industry when we debated unemployment in the West Midlands on a previous occasion and I shall not pursue that line tonight. The Government have taken many constructive measures to try to ease the problem of unemployment. My fear is that they are largely short-term measures, and they are expensive. I refer to the youth opportunities programme and the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. The West Midlands has the highest proportion of people helped by that scheme. There is a real threat to our employment. We have also received considerable help through the investment funds for British Leyland.
I am trying to turn minds to a longer-term approach. We have to face the inevitability of more and longer-term unemployment than we have been willing to contemplate so far. I am not trying to make a political point. Unemployment was rising rapidly under the Labour Government. It rose under the previous Conservative Government and the Labour Government before that. We face a new situation with the new technologies and we must come to terms with it. We shall have to re-jig our whole approach so that we not only investigate all the various opportunities available for employment but look at the situation more from the point of view of unemployment.
Among the problems to which I want to see the Government giving more long-term attention is the need to bring forward easier terms for earlier retirement. I do not believe that the job release scheme—although I welcome the recently-announced improvement—is yet adequate for the task.
We shall have shorter working weeks, which must be accompanied by more intensive use of machinery. I was connected with the textile industry 10 years ago, when it had a much shorter working week, coupled with continuous 24-hour working seven days a week, but at that time the workers were working only four days or nights a week. That is the sort of pattern which we can expect with more capital-intensive equipment needing more intensive working.
Therefore, we shall have to provide a higher level of skills. We need to break down the frontiers between


education and training. I have been urging my hon. Friends in the Department of Employment for some time to dispense with the artificial barriers that exist between them and the Department of Education and Science.
Reference has been made to the shortage of apprentice places, as many firms are no longer able to provide that sort of training. We need to aim to produce a replacement and we need an amalgam of work experience and further training and the necessary financial support to enable that to continue to lead us away from the present stupid 21-hour rule imposed by the DHSS before benefits can be paid to people studying. There has been a welcome relaxation, in that study for a qualification now carries entitlement to benefit, but only after an individual time-consuming interview. We need to achieve a basis of approving courses for that purpose.
Another example of the barriers that exist is the siting of the Redditch skillcentre. I urged that it should be built on the site for phase 3 of the Reddich college, and should be amalgamated with it. But the Department insisted on going ahead on its own site on the ground that it would provide regional training in skills. Nobody believes that, with travel costs at their present level, people will travel from all over the region to Redditch. Even that argument was inadequate because the regional skillcentre is nowhere near the railway station or the bus station, whereas the Redditch college is within easy walking distance of both. It is blinkered thinking.
We are still experiencing the same difficulty where people are trying to co-ordinate their approach, some on a voluntary basis. A remarkable committee operates which combines both sides of industry, careers officers, Church leaders and the college authorities. It is trying to provide a training workshop. Can they make use of that unused skillcentre? No, it is impossible—that would be crossing the bureaucratic line. There is no way that that use can be facilitated. Yet such a training workshop is the only way to provide such training for school leavers.
There needs to be more follow-up of the progress through training workshops and college courses, trying to provide a replacement for apprentice courses with the necessary financial backing through the benefit system. As a recent report made plain, we must get away from the plurality of offices through which benefit is currently paid—unemployment, supplementary, injury, all sorts of benefit. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to reassure me that we still definitely intend to move towards the introduction of a tax-credit system. Only in that way can we bring sense to the benefit system.
As many more hon. Members want to speak, in passing I should say that it is rather cynical of the Opposition to introduce the motion on unemployment in the West Midlands when they cannot find even as many speakers as the Conservative Party. We have heard all the sham protests from the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time, and all the demands for debates. When those debates are held the Opposition enrol the services of one of their Whips to speak on the subject to make up the numbers—

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Mr. Miller: —and keep the pot boiling.

Mr Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Miller: In conclusion, I should say—

Mr. Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am unaware that a point of order is likely to emerge.

Mr Miller: In conclusion—if I may be permitted to conclude—I make the point that attitudes are changing. There is no doubt that businesses have become more competitive, leaner and hungrier. But a price has been paid for reversing the years of decline. We need to look seriously at providing for new ways of working, new methods of manufacture, and new skills, training and education, so that there can be a pew approach to what is considered as the normal working life. I am looking to the Government for a lead to meet the challenge. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not fail, as the Government are not failing in other challenges.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have risen earlier and you would have ruled me out of order, but the imputation made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) was as silly as it was totally unjustified. For an hon. Member to descend to that sort of futile remark in a debate which he had characterised as being of the utmost importance is not worthy of the House.
We are discussing the regional issue of unemployment in the West Midlands, which is taking place against the gravest recession and the worst unemployment that the country has had the misfortune to suffer since the great slump of 1929 to 1931. In the past 12 months we have seen national unemployment rise by 1 million to a record postwar level of 10 per cent. Whether one attributes that to the design and intention of the Government, which I do not, or to their total incompetence and ignorance, which I do, does not matter. The simple fact stands out. A total of 1 million more people who wish to be in jobs earning a decent living are, through no fault of their own, in the dole queues and without employment, with all the shame and degradation that is attached to that.
If one turns to the regional situation, one sees that the figures become much starker and more real, and bite far deeper. The figures for the West Midlands have already been quoted and many of my hon. Friends have emphasised particular aspects of them. There is no need for me to pursue them further, but I must speak of Coventry and its travel-to-work area, which I have the privilege to represent.
There has been a 69 per cent. increase in unemployment in the West Midlands as a whole in the past 12 months, but Coventry has had a 101 per cent. increase in the same period. Through a brilliant management of the economy which will astound everyone the Government have managed to increase unemployment in Coventry by more than 100 per cent. In the Coventry travel-to-work area, which includes Bedworth and Nuneaton, the rise in unemployment has been nearer 110 per cent.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch could single out only young people in the Government's policies, which are in total disarray. In the Coventry area


there are 35 per cent. more young people without a job today than there were a year ago. In the city of Coventry alone 4,600 young people are without a permanent job.
That is not surprising when one considers what the economic management of the Government has achieved in terms of its impact on the activity of the part of the economy towards which they have directed their deflationary policies. They have been directed towards the manufacturing sector. The Prime Minister said precisely that in a speech in Cardiff at the weekend.
Everything in our economy has to live on the manufacturing sector. After all, manufacturing will go on after the oil wells have run dry. Despite automation, it is a sector which employs people and it is still the wealth-creating and employment-creating base of the country.
I must apologise for misleading the House when I intervened during the Chancellor of the Exchequer's winding-up speech in the Budget debate. I said that in one year he had done nearly as much as was done in the two worst years of the 1929–31 slump. In fact, he has done far worse. The most up-to-date figures show that from January 1980 to January 1981 manufacturing output fell by 14·4 per cent., compared with only 10·8 per cent. in the two worst years of the slump.
I cannot imagine what scheme of things, what magical formula, or what theoretical proposition can underlie a policy that hits at the epicentre of the country's well-being and wealth-creating sector. But that is what has happened. We in Coventry and the West Midlands have been at the sharp end of a policy the vicious effect of which has been sheer, simple, old-fashioned deflation.
Time and again we in Coventry, like many of my hon. Friends, have put forward cases and justifications for different classifications of various parts of the United Kingdom. We have asked for assisted area status, but, despite the worsening situation, we have been denied it. We have already had a 110 per cent. increase in unemployment in the area to a rate of 13 per cent. We face the prospect of that rate rising this year to 15 per cent.
There can be only one reason why the Government, with the blinkers on—as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch rightly described them—can refuse Coventry that status and refuse a change of direction in the country as a whole. It is the belief, which has been much canvassed in the Corridors of the House and peddled among certain economists, that things are on the up—they will get better, the slump will bottom out, industrial production will increase, new companies will come into being, the young technocrats will fill the places of the old industries, and we shall see that the masochism of the past two years has been worth while.
There are two views about that. I share the House's sceptical view of economists, so I shall not refer to the views of the 364 economists, though as 364 of them agree there may be cause for concern. My experience has been in industry and I do not look much further forward than to what an industrialist can anticipate. Distinguished, learned, able and theoretically competent though economists may be, I prefer to take the view of the CBI. I dare say that those holding the opposite view could produce as many supporters if they wished, but, unlike me, they believe that they are winning and I suppose that they have not tried to get together.
A report in The Times today on the CBI's forecasts and figures states:

The forecasts, which have been revised to take account of the impact of the Budget measures, are exceptionally gloomy. Unemployment is expected to continue on an upward trend to the end of next year, when CBI economists are predicting about 3·25 million people will be out of work.
The CBI recognises the contribution that the manufacturing sector, in particular, must make. The report in The Times continues:
Manufacturing output which, it had been hoped might recover once stock pipelines were emptied"—
that is the specious hope on which the Government are basing their expectations of a recovery—
is expected to continue falling until the first half of 1982, to reach nearly 20 per cent. below its 1979 level.
That is the realistic view. It is a view of industrialists and not economists. The industrialists are surrounded by industrial facts of life and have to take account of them in a way that academic economists, sitting in the ivory towers with which we associate them, do not.
The quarterly Coventry monitor of the local economy states:
In the conclusion to the report"—
that is the most recent quarterly report—
on the survey for the third quarter of 1980, it was suggested that the 'worst effects of the recession are yet to be felt in the local economy'. In the current survey, production and orders were continuing to fall, investment plans were again being cut back, and many firms intended to trim their workforces.
That is the reality as I see it. That is the situation in which the economy, nationally and locally, finds itself—manufacturing industry in particular. Against that has to be set the current view, put by two or three Conservative Members, who spoke in defence of the Government's policy, that we are on the point of an upturn that will prove every one of the 364 economists, the CBI, and the Coventry monitor of the local economy, wrong.
The Prime Minister stated that until she came to power
no one had the courage to stick at the remedy for long enough to allow it to work.
We come up against the famous argument that time is of the essence, that the upturn is round the corner and that the Government alone have the courage to see it through. It is probably a misquotation but Napoleon is said to have told one of his generals that he could give him everything but time. This Government have time on their side. They have effectively been in power for two years. How much longer do they want? The most disturbing part of the Prime Minister's speech, speaking of the road that has Led to record deflation, record unemployment and also virtually to a period of record inflation and a massive loss of production—worse than that experienced in the 1929–31 period—was her remark:
This is the road I am resolved to follow. This is the path I must go. I ask you all to have the spirit—the bold, the steadfast and the young in heart—to stand and join me as we go forward. For there is no other company in which I would travel.
It would be a funny sort of fellow traveller who would go down that road today. I do not think that there are anywhere near as many on either side of the House as the Prime Minister might imagine. That road is leading this country to disaster. A sort of Messiah complex seems to have infected the Prime Minister. That is a very dangerous disease. Fortunately, it is evident that the disease is not infectious or contagious among her Cabinet colleagues. Instead of this sort of messianic complex, what is needed from the Government is a little realism, a little pragmatism and a little understanding of the real problems that face industry, which is where the future for this country lies.
I should like to put some questions to the Government. How much more time do they want? When shall we know whether the measures have proved successful? Two years in Government is a long time. Will it take no longer than one more year for output to rise again, against all the predictions that I have read to the House? No Government can be entitled to more than that.
What level of unemployment are the Government prepared to tolerate? That is the second question. It goes hand in hand with the first. One cannot dodge the unemployment question. There is no way round it. The longer that policies are pursued that lead to a rise in unemployment, a drop in demand and a decrease in productive capacity and production, the longer and the faster this country will continue to go downhill.
The truisms of the past are still relevant today. I make no apology for quoting the Prime Minister again. When unemployment rose above 1 million under the previous Labour Government the Prime Minister remarked that a Conservative Government would have been drummed out of office in that situation. It was from the West Midlands southwards that the terrible swing occurred. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State for Employment enter the Chamber at this critical juncture. At the weekend the right hon. Gentleman spoke specifically of the North-South divide and the necessity for the Government to pay more attention to people and conditions in the North of England. I ask the Government again to state what level of unemployment they are prepared to tolerate before the Government and the Secretary of State himself call it a day. That day will certainly come. The existing policies are doomed.
It was in the West Midlands that the vote went wrong the last time. Across the broad spectrum, trade unionists and housewives put this disastrous Government into power. It will be for the trade unionists, the housewives and the voters of the West Midlands, who are suffering most from unemployment, to put right that terrible mistake and see that it is reversed at the next election.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am grateful to be called in this important debate. It is important for the Midlands. I point out to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) that the debate covers both the East and the West Midlands. Not least is it important for my constituency, where over one-third of the people work in engineering, and many in heavy engineering, which is the hardest-hit sector. My constituency, therefore, shares the worries and the problems experienced by other constituencies.
All hon. Members know how unemployment eats into the spirit of a community. Concern about unemployment is not simply a party matter. Opposition Members who claim that it is do the House a disservice. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was one of the few who recognised that this is a matter of concern to the whole House. One becomes angry on hearing some Opposition Members assert that they have a better right to be smug over unemployment than have Conservative Members.
We have heard how levels of unemployment have grown whichever party has been in power. I affirm that Conservative Members share the concern that exists about unemployment. We differ over the remedies.
Unemployment is clearly a deep-rooted problem. Those who examine the issue honestly realise that one has to look further than the short-term effects of party politics. There are no easy solutions for unemployment. Often, politicians believe that they can influence events rapidly, especially when in Opposition. Opposition Members believe that they could speedily cure this awful disease. In truth, events take time to work through.
One needs only to examine the Reform Acts of the last century to understand this. Before they were passed, people thought that they would overturn society. In fact, it took many decades for political events to work through. The same applies to employment policies. The existing level of unemployment is the result of 20 years' relative decline in our economy, allied to the fiercest recession since the war. We should do what we can to alleviate the hardship. That is one reason why the Government have doubled the provision for the youth opportunities programme. However, in Lincoln and, I believe, in many constituencies, although the Government schemes are welcome as an alternative, what people really want are true jobs—jobs that they know are needed.
Therefore, although at present it is reasonable to spend more and more money on these unemployment schemes, they do not fool the British people. The people want policies that they know will create substantial jobs in the long term, and it is the Government's prime job to pursue consistently the main themes that can lead to those jobs in the long term.
I should like to look more closely at these main themes, for it is not good enough just to denounce unemployment for the evil that it is. That is easily done, as we have discovered from many Opposition Members. They have denounced unemployment. But what we want to hear from them, and what we must ask, is what should be done about it. We have to be creative in our approach to unemployment.
First, there is no doubt that inflation is the major destroyer of jobs. It has a devastating effect on industry, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, with his experience, did not mention it. Inflation destroys confidence, it destroys investment, it puts up interest rates, it encourages wage demands and, over a number of years, it eats into the very heart of our productive processes. It saps industry's power to compete. Despite this, there are still many successful businesses in Britain.
Now, at least, the Government have got inflation falling, and at such a time it is easy to forget the damage that inflation does. But it would be foolish to forget the long-term damage that it can do. Any Government who wish to be taken seriously in their fight against inflation must have a coherent anti-inflation policy. Yet, when we listen to the Opposition we hear merely about a programme for massive public expenditure which will entail borrowing on a scale vastly in excess of even what we are borrowing now. Surely, if we have learnt anything in the past 20 years it is that large injections of borrowed money into the economy serve merely to refuel inflation, with a consequent increase in the level of unemployment.
Certainly, as we know from the past, a few jobs will be created in the short term, but only at a very heavy long-term cost.
No responsible Government should follow such a course, but in the few days since the formation of the SDP it has become clear that the new party would borrow just as large sums as—or even larger ones than—the official Opposition. Such a policy is a cruel deception of the British people. On the other hand, the Budget, however unpopular it is in the country—and it is very unpopular—has confirmed the Government's intention to secure consistently falling inflation, which is an essential ingredient in the long-term creation of jobs.
Secondly, it is only by being productive and fully competitive that we can secure jobs. The history of shipbuilding since the war is a sobering example. After the war we had nearly half the world's market for ships. Now we have a negligible share. Perhaps the major reason for the decline was the desire to save jobs in the shipbuilding industry. Restrictive practices remained, and whereas the rest of the world created a modern industry, we held on to what we had, which, in the end, meant fewer jobs in shipbuilding today than would have been the case if we had gone flat out for modernisation.
This recession has made many businesses become more efficient, and when we come out of the recession the potential for greater productivity will be large. But the major task facing the Government is to ensure that we keep the benefits, the changes and the better practices that have been created in this recession. In order to do that the Government have to provide a much better framework for communications and co-operation in industry. They cannot be content with the gains that have been won from or perhaps forced on the unions. They must create a better structure.
In their battle to make the work force feel better involved and more willing to co-operate in defeating restrictive practices, I urge one aspect upon them. The Government have made progress with profit sharing. But they should go much further still with it. It is quite right that the people who help to create the profits should benefit from those profits and the money which they help to generate. When the recession ends we shall make good profits again. Now is the time to create a better structure. Just as we should invest in industry during a recession so that the machinery is available for the upturn, so we should do much more by way of profit sharing, so that the work force can become involved when the upturn comes.
Profit sharing is an important element in industrial participation, along with many other factors. In this and other ways the Government should consolidate the progress in productivity secured during the last two years. Thus, we must reduce inflation and increase productivity.
But these measures alone will not solve the unemployment problem. The example of my own constituency is relevant. After the recession, businesses there will be able to produce much more without employing many more people. They will have to do so if they are to remain competitive and to protect the jobs that already exist there. We do not want to see them go the way of shipbuilding. We delude ourselves if we believe that the old industries will take on more people when the recession is over. Therefore, we must look for genuine growth from smaller businesses to provide new jobs.
Some Opposition Members decry what the Government have done to help the birth of small businesses. However,

the sum of the three Budgets shows that there has been substantial progress. We have a coherent and consistent policy to help small businesses both to set up and to grow. When we come out of the recession, these measures, which are small individually but impressive as a whole, will help in the creation of many new jobs.
It is strange that although many Opposition Members point out that the old businesses will not take on more people when we come out of the recession they are loth to give their full backing to the creation of small new businesses. Therefore, in their approach to inflation, productivity and support for small businesses, the Government have the right themes. Anyone can find fault with the details—that is always easy—but if in the main the themes are right, in the end the details will fall into place.
As well as urging the Government to stick to their main themes, I ask them to continue to formulate a more imaginative approach to unemployment. Unemployment seems certain to stay with us in a larger measure than we have known since the war. We must work at both ends of the age scale to diminish the number of people looking for jobs. The youth opportunities programme is already developing towards a national community service. I believe that there is scope here to extend it further and more imaginatively, so that not only have young people some training and some form of job to go to but they can believe that it is really creative and that it contributes to society. It needs developing imaginatively.
In the same way, we must look more closely at retirement. The job release scheme is one of the few schemes that genuinely provide real jobs and have the scope for extension.
The youth opportunities programme, the job release scheme and other imaginative ideas need money. As we come out of the recession, Government borrowing will tend to fall and the funds can therefore be released. But the thinking for that more imaginative extension has to be done now.
This debate is about the Midlands. I have concentrated on national issues rather than on the Midlands because the problems of the Midlands embrace both the strengths and the weaknesses of our national industrial performance. The Midlands is a region still rich in talent and innovation—a region whose industries can compete with the industries of any other country. If the Government continue to provide the right framework for the regions the Midlands will thrive again. I believe that the Government are pursuing the main themes that will provide the correct framework for the Midlands and the nation.

Mr. Bill Homewood: I want to make three points in reply to some of the comments that have been made by Conservative Members. The first relates to 'what was said by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), who made a thoughtful speech, although I believe that it was totally misconceived.
The idea that inflation causes unemployment is anything but proved anywhere in the world. I certainly have not seen any proof. When the hon. Gentleman gets as old as I, he will realise that in the past—in my case, the 1950s—people argued that inflation was caused by over-employment. Many Conservative Members have constantly referred to the world recession as a means of explaining our dilemma, not only in the Midlands but


throughout the country. There is no doubt that there is a world recession, but we should highlight the difference between the situation in Britain and that in the rest of the world.
As was pointed out in the press on Sunday, in the past 12 months unemployment has risen by 3 million in the 24 OECD countries. Britain has contributed one-third of that total. Our increase has been 1 million. However, our contribution to the GDP of the OECD countries is exactly 6 per cent. Therefore, for that 6 per cent. we have contributed 33 per cent. of OECD unemployment.
Conservative Members also refer to our lack of competitiveness and low productivity. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Employment has left the Chamber. I listened carefully to the speech that he made during the Budget debate. He repeated the theme, which we hear so often from the Conservative Benches, that our problems emanate from low productivity and lack of competitiveness. However, he ended that speech by saying that unemployment is rising in every country in the world. What has happened to their competitiveness? What happens if we catch them up? Do we take their level of unemployment on board, or do they take ours on board? The problem goes much deeper throughout the capitalist world, and the remarks that have come from Conservative Members are more appropriate to a general economic debate than to a debate such as this.
I claim the dubious honour of representing the area with the highest level of travel-to-work unemployment in the Midlands. As I have already said in an intervention, with one exception it has the highest level of unemployment in the United Kingdom. The March unemployment figure for Corby stood at 22 per cent., but male unemployment was 24·8 per cent. One in four males in Corby was out of work. The overall unemployment level in Kettering was 11·4 per cent., but male unemployment amounted to 16·2 per cent. Those figures seriously underestimate the problem.
More than 1,000 persons in those two towns are now involved in retraining schemes at technical colleges. Those schemes are financed by the BSC and are rapidly coming to a conclusion. There is no doubt that a further 1,000 people will shortly be added to the dole queues in those two towns, and there is little prospect of that retraining ever being put to use in the area. Indeed, there is very little prospect of them ever finding jobs at all. I estimate that within another three months Corby will have a male unemployment level of more than 30 per cent., and Kettering will have a male unemployment level of more than 20 per cent.
I remember arguing in the House that the closure of the Corby steelworks would not help the PSBR. I was interrupted by the Secretary of State for Industry, who said that I talked as though none of those people would ever get a job. I did not say that, but imagined that in the medium term they would probably not get a job. However, in the current economic situation, which the Government have created, I should like the Secretary of State for Industry to tell me when it will be possible for those people to get jobs.
I would not feel so outraged about the plight of my constituents if more concern was expressed by Conservative Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Conservative Members may say that, and I know that the hon. Member for Lincoln said that there was concern

on both sides of the House. Unfortunately, not many Conservative Members represent the sort of area that I represent. I am not aware of such concern being portrayed by Conservative Members.
If we could have an acceptance of the fact that the worst economic problem is unemployment and that it is a form of mass human deprivation which, in a civilised society, should not exist to anywhere near this degree, we would be well on the way towards making progress. However, Conservative Members treat and talk about unemployment as though it were some sort of academic exercise.
Very little will improve in Corby or Kettering as quickly as is necessary until the Government change economic course. I appreciate their difficulties. I have been married for more than 40 years, and although I have won 50 per cent. of the arguments which take place within the family, I have never yet been able to get my wife to admit that she was wrong. That is the Government's problem.
However, the Government are not dealing with my domestic problems. They do not decide whether I should buy a new house, have the garden redesigned, or have a room decorated. They are dealing with the lives of my constituents in a variety of ways—whether the kids are ill-treated, whether marriages break up, whether the level of non-accidental injuries rises, whether crime increases, whether vandalism damages a fair town, whether alcoholism and glue sniffing become a norm rather than an exception, whether local shops go bankrupt, and whether there is a grave danger of the whole social structure in a limited area breaking down. When we reach the level of unemployment which exists in my constituency, those are the sort of conditions that must be taken on board.
I did not need 364 economists, the CBI or anyone else to tell me that if the Government do not do a V-turn—not a U-turn, because I see from today's Financial Times that we have V-turns, U-turns, W-turns and many others, although the V-turn attracts me more than any of the others—on public expenditure, interest rates, the £ sterling, the Common Market and import controls, the social fabric of this country will be in danger of breaking down.
I am amazed at the defence of free trade advanced by some hon. Members. Ministers are not even able to give me a satisfactory answer when I tell them, as even Conservative Members have told them, that child labour is used in Italy to produce footwear that is subsequently imported into this country. Ministers tell me that it cannot be stopped. I do not believe in free trade. It has so many aberrations in it that it can never work. I do not see how anyone could believe that it could be a viable theory.
When the Secretary of State for Employment talks about a steady strategy with flexible tactics he should realise that his comments will bring no cheers from the Corby dole queues. The people there will have not the slightest idea of what he is talking about, and, frankly, neither have I. I carefully consulted the Oxford English Dictionary this morning, and I discovered that both those terms are applicable solely in the context of military activity. I understand that the Secretary of State for Employment is one of the "wets". Indeed, I understand that he is an almost half-soaked wet. He would do a good turn to his party if he produced the sort of splinter group that has developed from my party. I could suggest a name


for such a group, which would not be so far from the SDP. We could call it the HSD party—the half-soaked democratic party.
If the country is to get out of the mess into which the Government have put it, it must have radical policies. Let me explain how such an approach would help Corby if the Government had the will to adopt it. The Government do damage other than by their economic policies. I have argued for many months with the Secretary of State for Transport about the need for him to give a starting date for the M1-A1 link, which everyone apart from a small agricultural coterie in the county council in Northamptonshire, agrees is essential for the revival of Corby. The Secretary of State constantly contends that the road cannot be started until 1983. It was approved almost three and a half years ago. I find it inconceivable that if there is any will to assist the people of Corby and Kettering the starting date for the road cannot be brought forward.
The other area in which the Government could have helped but have instead injured was the decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment to change the rate support grant for the block grant system. That decision cost Corby £600,000 of Government money. Had the Corby council decided to continue its services and employment at an unchanged level rates in the area would have had to rise by 83 per cent. Of course, it responsibly cut back and produced a rate increase of about the average for the country, putting more people on the dole and cutting services in an already horribly depressed town. Those are two instances of where the Government should be more careful in dealing with local problems such as those in Corby.
I do not want to quote the national CBI reaction to the optimism that was expressed about the recession bottoming out. Instead I rely on a quote from the East Midlands CBI, which was reported only a few days ago in my local newspaper under the headline "No End to Gloom". The report stated that the East Midlands region of the CBI has reported that more people would lose their jobs and more people would go bankrupt over the next few months. It is against that background that I have indicated what must be done to help Corby.
I turn, finally, to the question of retraining in the Corby area. The principals of the technical colleges in Kettering and Corby have told me that the BSC schemes are running out and that when they are finished the technical colleges will not have the funds to continue the courses. That is happening in an area where unemployment is more than 22 per cent.
The whole basis of my contention is that there will be no well-being in the nation until the Government make a substantial change of economic course. That is necessary to secure an improvement in conditions in my constituency. They are worse than anywhere else, and the rate at which they improve depends on the Government's national economic policies.

Mr. David Knox: I wish to pursue only one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood). It serves no useful purpose to throw taunts across the Floor of the House accusing people of not caring about unemployment. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House care about it, but they have different solutions to the problem. Even hon. Members on

the same side have different solutions. We all care about unemployment, and the hon. Gentleman achieves no useful purpose by accusing us of a lack of care or concern.
I am grateful to have been called to speak in the debate, and I do not apologise for doing so. Unemployment in my constituency, which was very low for the first 30 years after the war, now represents a real, growing and serious problem.
Many hon. Members may find it difficult to associate Leek with the Midlands, because when they talk about the Midlands, especially the West Midlands, they tend to think of Birmingham and Coventry, and the towns that lie around those two great cities. They tend to think of the car and engineering industries. However, the Midlands area stretches much further than that, and Leek is just as much a part of the Midlands as is Birmingham or Coventry, albeit on the northern tip bordering on the North-West region.
Over the past seven years there has been a serious deterioration in employment in North Staffordshire., and, of course, I am particularly concerned about the situation in my own constituency. In March 1974, when the Tory Government left office, 644 people were out of work in the Leek constituency. By March 1979, just before the Labour Government left office, the figure had risen to 1,661. At the most recent count, in March of this year, the figure was in excess of 4,000. There was a substantial increase in unemployment under the Labour Government and it has continued under the present Government. If people wish to attribute blame they must remember that both Labour and Conservative Governments are at fault.
Despite the increase in unemployment of over 500 per cent. since 1974, my constituency receives no special help from the Government to deal with the problem, except that the town of Leek and the moorlands area that surrounds it have received help from COSIRA, which has provided advance factories. We are grateful for that help Almost all the factories were occupied immediately they were built. They make a real contribution to helping small businesses to start up in the constituency. I pay tribute to the Development Commission and COSIRA for the work that they have done in my constituency and in other parts of the country.
Apart from the serious overall unemployment position in my constituency, I should like to single out the plight of Biddulph, where unemployment is particularly serious. A figure of 20 per cent. out of work is bandied around, but that is an exaggeration, because large numbers of people in Biddulph are commuters to Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester.
In February 1974 only 131 people in Biddulph were out of work. The number today is 836. The number increased steadily under Labour and Conservative Governments. Despite that dramatic increase in unemployment, no special help has been given to the area. The argument advanced by the Department of Industry is that Biddulph is in the Stoke-on-Trent travel-to-work area.
That is nonsense. Unemployment in Stoke-on-Trent is not as high as it is in Biddulph, but some people in Stoke are out of work. When my Biddulph constituents seek employment in Stoke they face an inevitable problem. If two people of equal ability apply for a job in Stoke the employer will take the person who lives nearer the job rather than the person who lives five or 10 miles away. He therefore does not employ the person from Biddulph. I urge the Minister to examine that problem. The position


is not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) nods in agreement. I expect that his constituents have a similar problem.
We are told that the present high level of unemployment is a consequence of excessive wage claims, restrictive practices, overmanning, bad labour relations, managerial incompetence and lack of investment. The industries in my constituency cover a wide range. They include textiles, engineering, electronics, chemicals, mining and farming. The work forces have a wide range of skills. The people are hard-working, but not highly paid. They have never received big wage or salary increases.
Labour relations are good today, and have been for many years. They are as good as anywhere in the United Kingdom. Strikes are infrequent, and always have been. There is excellent co-operation between management and workers. Management is good. Firms have invested in new plant and machinery. My constituency has a good labour force, which is engaged in efficient factories and mills. I do not say that just because I represent them. It is true, as anybody who has visited the constituency will know. It is therefore unfair that my constituents should suffer high unemployment in the same way as, but to a rather greater extent than, many who have conducted themselves less well in recent years.
Management and unions alike in my constituency are puzzled by the fact that, having done all the right things over the years, they are heavily penalised for the sins of others by a dramatic increase in unemployment.
As I have already pointed out, my constituency receives no help except from COSIRA. I ask the Minister to reconsider that. I hope that he will make special help available to my constituency because of the increase in unemployment in recent years.
Much as we would appreciate such help, and considerable as would be the advantage to my constituents, it is important to recognise that the best way to improve employment in Leek and North Staffordshire generally is by a revival of the national economy. North Staffordshire was prosperous and enjoyed full employment when Britain as a whole was prosperous and enjoyed full employment, and when Britain again enjoys those advantages North Staffordshire will follow suit.
How do we achieve that? I find no evidence in this country, or in any other, that prosperity is the automatic consequence of stable prices. The current battle against inflation and the obsession with stable prices, even if successful, will not ensure a return to economic prosperity and full employment. Because the success, to date, of the anti-inflationary policy is due to a tight squeeze on company profits and a severe depression of demand, a return to prosperity and full employment is impossible as long as this policy continues in its present form.
If we are to return to economic prosperity we need to expand the economy and get economic growth. In my view, that will not happen naturally. The Government must act. Demand must be stimulated for British products, and then more people will be needed to produce those goods.
There are two ways in which that should be done. First, the exchange rate must be reduced to a level that bears a greater relationship to comparative manufacturing costs. That can be done in three different ways: first, by a further and substantial reduction in interest rates; secondly, by

ensuring that more of the revenue from oil is invested abroad to ensure that investment income from abroad flows into this country when the supply of oil eventually expires; and, thirdly, by talking down sterling. If the exchange rate could be reduced to a more realistic level, our exports would be cheaper in world markets and imports into this country would be dearer. As a result, the demand on home industry would be higher. In my constituency, the textile, engineering and electronic industries would benefit because they are all engaged in exports, and they are all adversely affected by cheap imports.
In addition to the beneficial effects that would accrue from a reduction in the exchange rate, there would be the advantage of increased demand following a further substantial reduction in interest rates.
The second way to return to economic prosperity is to cut taxation, either direct or indirect. If direct taxes were cut there would be an incentive effect. If indirect taxes were cut there would be a price effect. Either way, people would have more money to spend and more to save. It would help to increase the proportion of the national income taken by the private sector. That part of the tax cut that was spent would result in more consumption and increased demand, and in time that would mean more jobs and encourage more investment. The other part of the tax cut that was saved would mean extra funds for investment.
It will be argued by some people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), that that would increase the public sector borrowing requirement. That would not worry me too much, because I have a feeling that the figure of £10½ billion given as the estimate for the deficit in the year ahead is not scientifically based. In any event, if expansionist policies were pursued it would, I believe, bring into employment the unemployed and underemployed, bring into use under-utilised capital equipment, generate more wealth, and eventually be self-financing. The important point is that a more realistic exchange rate and tax cuts would result, first, in the stabilisation of employment and then in a reduction in unemployment. That could only be beneficial.
Unemployment in my constituency and in the country as a whole is a waste of resources and is socially damaging and divisive. It is the most serious domestic problem that the country faces. We suffered from high unemployment in the 1920s and 1930s. Apart from the suffering imposed on the people then, it left a legacy of bitterness and class hatred. In industry it left a legacy of fear of change, of innovation and of new labour-saving plant and machinery.
Most of our overmanning problems are due to the natural tendency of people afraid of losing their jobs to spread their work, in the belief that that protects those jobs. It would be a tragedy if today we continued to repeat the follies of a mere 50 years ago. Therefore, I ask the Government to make the reduction of unemployment their No. 1 priority. In my view, it is the greatest human problem that we face in Britain.

Mr. Bruce George: I am proud to represent one of the three Walsall constituencies, which are in an area that has, regrettably, suffered considerably over the past 18 months or two years. A distinguished politician, David Lloyd George, to whom I am not related—although after watching the television


programmes about him I am not as certain as I was—said a long time ago that Walsall was a town of 100 trades. Unfortunately, the present Government are creating what may be in the not-too-distant future a town of just 100 firms.
This once thriving town, in a once thriving area, has been reduced to dire straits. It would be foolish and immoral for anyone to argue that its crisis began on 4 May 1979, but this Government's misguided policies and wrong decisions have contributed considerably to exacerbating the already considerable problems facing the town and the West Midlands as a whole.
Let me look at the stark statistics, as many other hon. Members have done. The national average unemployment is 10·3 per cent. In the West Midlands the average is 11·9 per cent., and in the Walsall travel-to-work area it is 13·9 per cent., representing a total of 23,542 people. Those figures exclude Darlaston, which is not in the Walsall travel-to-work area. On the basis of my research, I add to those figures about 2,000 people in Darlaston, 2,000 in job creation schemes, perhaps 2,000 who are not at this stage registered as unemployed, and the thousands on short-time working. One then finds that the real figure of unemployment is not 23,500 but well over 30,000.
We read in the press today about proposed coups in 1968. Unemployment then was 542,000, or 2·3 per cent. of the population. If we had threats of coups in those almost halcyon days, the ghosts of usurpers of power, past and present—Videla, Pinochet, Amin, Franco, Hitler, Master Sergeant Doe, the Greek colonels and Korea's Park and Chun—should be heading for London with the speed and numbers of people in the London marathon yesterday.
The unemployment figures are startling and unacceptable. About two years ago a then Minister in the Department of Industry—my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield)—visited my constituency. He visited Darlaston and took a great deal of stick from the trade unionists there. Inflation was then just over 9 per cent. and unemployment was 6·5 per cent. Those were the supposedly bad old days when we were in office. How many people now regret supporting this Government on 3 May 1979?
I also remember vividly the cries of so many Conservative Members that the unemployed were unemployed of will. With 23,500 unemployed in my town, how many vacancies are there? There are 192. That shows how misguided is the view that large numbers of people are deliberately seeeking to remain unemployed. The jobs are not there.
The roll-call of defunct companies in the Walsall area is growing by the day. Were these companies really inefficient or were they potentially viable economic entities? I suspect that in most cases the latter is true.
We in Walsall have no giant companies, yet the thousands of small companies, shedding labour with a constant drip, drip, cumulatively represent a position as disastrous as some of the major crises which have befallen areas such as Corby. The lifeblood of the town has been ebbing away, with companies closing. Aluminium Bronze has closed, with 300 unemployed; Eaton Axles, with 450 unemployed; TI Sunhouse, with 500 unemployed. GKN, once very strong in Darlaston, has virtually abandoned the town. Rubery Owen, one of the giants of former years, is now but a shadow of its former self.
In Darlaston, once the heartland of nuts and bolts, the industrial fasteners industry is now struggling to survive.
Leather goods, once a dominant industry in Walsall, is suffering from imports from Italy, South America, South Korea and Taiwan. In many cases firms are struggling on the very margin of extinction.
The decline of industry in the West Midlands has been well documented. It is, indeed, alarmingly bad. Walsall is not just a microcosm of the West Midlands. In a report commissioned by Walsall council it was said that Walsall is an exaggerated version of the West Midlands economy, with a rather higher level of dependence on metal-based manufacture and relatively lower levels of service sector employment.
The crisis has not bottomed out. The crisis has not been unexpected but has been coming for some 20 years. It has been accelerated in the last two years. Many of the reasons for the decline can be laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of this Administration. When Conservative Members put the blame on the world crisis they are seeking to delude their constituents.
Many parts of my constituency are suffering more than others. What should be done? Obviously, the Government should end their lunatic economic policies. T. can understand why some Conservative Members seek to denigrate the views of the 364 economists who have spoken against the Government's economic policy, but will those Conservative Members find in the newspaper tomorrow, or the day after, 364 economists who have put their names to a sheet of paper in trying to defend the Government's policies?
No wonder Conservative Members feel rather tetchy. Milton Friedman has virtually colonised their collective mind. Indeed, many of the Government's policies emanate directly from that academic. But I am not suggesting that we should denigrate academics. Had we paid more attention to some of the solutions offered by them we would not be in the mess that we are in today.
The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has shot out of the sky the remnants of respectability of the Government's economic strategy, and I commend it for that—although I suppose that it is difficult to shoot out of the sky a kamikaze pilot. The Government have lost support from those who put them into office—the press, the business community, large and small, and working people. Indeed, the Government have lost a great deal of support from their own Back Benches and in the Cabinet itself.
I liken the Prime Minister to a latter-day General Custer, gloriously leading her troops into certain oblivion. When I went to the battlefield at Little Big Horn, one thing surprised me. I knew that there would be crosses on the spot where the soldiers died, but I thought there would be 250 crosses surrounding Custer. There were not, for it was obvious that when the crunch came most of his forces had already begun to disappear, and one could see the crosses in the distance around the battlefield. Clearly, that is what is happening today to this Government.
The Government must therefore do many things. They must lower the exchange rate, introduce selective import controls, seek to reflate the economy, reduce energy costs, abandon their loony Friedmanism, and present a new Budget with a new Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In my local area I should like to see specific aid for companies to enable them to invest, as happened under the Labour Government with the Industry Act. A great deal


more must be done to provide infrastructure assistance to the local authority to help it to provide factory units for prospective companies.
Training must be given a boost. I am sad that so many apprentices are being shed by companies in my area and in other industrial areas. More aid should be given to the microprocessor industry. The aid given so far is nothing short of piddling. We need a positive rather than a negative approach to industry in the West Midlands. We must seek to give assistance to those local authorities that want to use their powers to attract industry. If some of these things are done, the reversal or our economy can be halted and we can look forward to some form of economic revival.
I believe in a healthy, mixed economy and in a healthy private sector that works alongside an expanded, healthy, public sector. I have set out what the Government should do to encourage industry. Far more must be done. There are problems in our constituencies. People are becoming agitated. Unless the Government respond to pressure from academics, Members of Parliament and their constituents, the unemployment queues, which are already far too long, will grow even longer.

Mr. Jocelyn Cadbury: The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke with great sincerity, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), when he read out a catalogue of disasters—

Mr. Sever: Some of them.

Mr Cadbury: The hon. Gentleman cited some of the disasters in terms of redundancies and factory closures that have characterised the Midlands during the past few years. However, I disagree with Labour Members, because they seem to believe that such disasters can simply be put down to two years of rule by one party. The reasons for the recent closures go back many years. In addition, they have a lot to do with the structural nature of industry in the Midlands.
One of the main reasons why unemployment in the Midlands has increased faster than in other regions is that it is over-dependent on about four major industries. Obviously, the motor industry is the most important one. The motor industry, metal manufacturing, and mechanical and electrical engineering account for about 68 per cent. of the region's output, compared with a national average of 45 per cent. As a country we have performed less well in those industries, and particularly in the motor industry.
We have failed to stem the import of foreign vehicles that has arisen as a result of our relative inefficiency and it is therefore inevitable that unemployment in the Midlands should rise disproportionately. In the West Midlands, about 250,000 people are employed in the motor industry. In Birmingham, British Leyland employs 9 per cent. of the working population. This inherent weakness is nothing new. From 1970 to 1978, manufacturing employment in the region declined by 102,000. That decline in the number of those employed in manufacturing industry, and in particular in the motor industry, has been going on for a long time. It is futile to argue that it is simply the product of two years of one Government's rule.
The fundamental problem in the Midlands is that high technology is not of paramount importance in the industries involved. In the production of a family-sized motor car it is not the degree of sophistication that will sell the car but its price and quality. As a country, we have failed to compete, particularly with the new industrial Powers of the Far East, such as Japan. We have completely failed to raise our rate of productivity to anything like that of the French and Germans—let alone the Japanese.
Why have we failed? In the Midlands there are wonderful specimens of industrial archaeology. There are old factories, such as Fort Dunlop and the factory that I worked in at Bournville. Indeed, that factory celebrated its hundredth anniversary a couple of years ago. It has some fine old buildings, but they are difficult to modernise and to put new machinery into. Such factories have systems of industrial organisation that are also nineteenth century in origin. There are companies employing people in five or even 10 different trade unions. That is one of the main reasons why we have experienced difficulty in raising productivity. Productivity in skilled trades is four to 10 times lower than in Japan.
For example, recent figures supplied by the Ford Motor Company about the numbers involved in making one motor car are alarming. For every one man employed on making a motor car in Japan, in West Germany there are three and in the United Kingdom there are six. That is the difference in productivity between this country and other countries. That is why we have failed and why we have such high unemployment.
I do not blame any particular group for this situation. We are all to blame. Managers are to blame, because since the Second World War they have failed to face these issues. There has been a failure to invest sufficiently in new factories. Managers have failed to tackle the multi-union issue. They have not communicated commercial reality to their employees. They have not gone on to the shop floor and explained the commercial situation. They abandoned the role of communication to the shop stewards, and that was wrong.
Since the war the unions—there are shining exceptions—have been intensely conservative. In my experience in factories, I discovered that we spent too much time on niggling disputes instead of getting on with the job and planning for the future. In Ford factories in this country, production managers regularly spend 50 per cent. of their time sorting out small industrial disputes, whereas their Continental colleagues spend only 10 per cent. of their time on such matters.
Governments of both major parties have been to blame for a regional policy that scattered the traditional industries of the Midlands throughout the country. Part of the motor industry that was happily working in the Midlands was sent to Scotland and goodness knows where else. That is another reason why it has become inefficient. At the same time, regional policy prevented new industries coming into this country. That is why Birmingham and other such cities have few companies involved in high technology.
The Government's record has been roundly condemned by Oppposition Members, but I defend the Government's record on aid to industry. If they had not allocated nearly £1 billion to British Leyland, the West Midlands would have become an industrial desert. Opposition Members should take that factor into account.
The Government have provided help for small businesses. The reduction in corporation tax from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. was of great help to small companies. Incentives to build small factory units, of which there is a dearth in the Midlands, are of great help.
The loan guarantee scheme outlined in the Budget will help those wanting to start up small businesses to solve the difficulty of getting risk capital. That has been of great help.
Much more needs to be done. The Midlands must attract high technology and growth industries, or the region's decline will go on.
I have certain specific suggestions to make, some of which sound mundane. For example, it is difficult to believe that in Birmingham there is not much land available for industrial development. Going into New Street station by train one sees on either side of the railway track large areas of industrial wasteland. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison)—to convey to his ministerial colleagues, especially those in the Department of Environment, the fact that further pressure needs to be put on nationalised industries and private companies that are sitting on land—pressure to sell that land so that it may be used for new industries and firms.
Secondly, we must learn to use university technology to a much greater degree. We need to make much more use of the technologicial expertise that exists in our universities. I am a Birmingham man, and I think of Birmingham and Aston universities. I suggest that we follow the American example of setting up industrial estates—which are known in the United States as science parks—next to our universities. High technology industries should be encouraged to move to these sites, where they could take advantage of the expertise that is available to them in university laboratories. Around the campus of Stanford university there is a truly remarkable scene of billion-dollar companies making microchips and engaged in computer technology—companies that have sprung up around a synthesis that has emerged between business men and academics.
In the long run the responsibility for reviving the West Midlands depends on individuals—individual managers, individual trade unionists and individual employees. Managers must give greater leadership to their work forces. They must make greater efforts to explain economic realities to their work forces so that we can avoid tragedies of the sort that have occurred in my constituency. For example, the closure of Birmetals was due to a failure to communicate. That happened at Ansells brewery, which again was the scene of a failure to communicate between workers and managers. Let us get the managers to communicate. I ask trade union leaders to accept and welcome rapid changes in working practices and the introduction of new technology, and to do that more rapidly than in the past. Only by both sides of industry working together shall we rebuild the strength of the Midlands.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) that unemployment and industrial problems did not start with this Government. It would be a foolish party that suggested that it could cure the problems of technological

unemployment overnight. Our criticism of the Government is not that they have failed to cure unemployment but that their policies, whatever the alleviation in certain areas, in terms of finance and economics are the great creators of unemployment. Unemployment in Britain under this Government has accelerated much more rapidly than in any other country.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment spoke about the efforts made by the Staffordshire Development Association. I am appreciative of its work and I welcome the jobs that it has created over a period. However, the hon. Gentleman did not say how man4, jobs have been lost in Staffordshire during the same period. My constituency has consistently had a level of unemployment far higher than the level throughout the West Midlands. Indeed, it has one of the highest unemployment levels in the country. It is running currently at about 17 per cent.
The reason for this high unemployment lies with the decline of the mining industry. During the 1950s there was a great fall-off in the industry. Mining jobs were replaced—largely through the work of the local authorities—by a great mass of small industries. An unfortunate feature is that when the squeeze is on small industries feel the pinch much more quickly than large industries, and suffer the most. That is part of the problem. Another part of the problem is that in an area such as mine, which is near to a conurbation, there are often subsidiary units to the larger units within the conurbation.
There is always a tendency for industry to squeeze at the outer ends rather than at the centre in times of recession. We have those problems. My fear is that, never mind what has been said about the upturn, we are only at the beginning of the downward road. The fall-off m demand will create further problems later this year.
We have heard that Lucas is talking about laying off between 4,000 and 4,500 workers. In my constituency about 2,000 people are employed by Lucas Industries. Clearly, we have enormous problems in my area.
What are the solutions? There are no absolute solutions, but something can be done to alleviate the problems. Like the hon. Member for Northfield, I welcome a departure from the blanket regional policies of the past. Successive Governments have tended to take away industries from their more effective areas. The introduction of enterprise zones is a move in the right direction, but the basic need is the revival of the whole of the West Midlands industry.
There has been talk about the possibility of attracting the Nissan project to the West Midlands. Although that was not welcomed by some hon. Members earlier, I welcome it because it would provide thousands of jobs in the motor industry and many more for the component firms. The sad fact is that if Nissan comes to Britain, the West Midlands motor industry will suffer from additional competition, but the siting of Nissan in the area would be a compensation at least to the component firms in the area. The West Midlands has the land and the component firms which are necessary.
I want to see closer consideration of the operation of British Leyland and its treatment of component firms. As the Minister will know, BL recently was humming and hawing over the question whether it should buy headlamps and accessories from Lucas. It was threatening to offer the contract to firms in other parts of the world. Clearly, a large firm such as BL—an enormous recipient of public money—has a considerable responsibility to component manufacturers in the region.
The greater need in the longer term, if the area is to expand and flourish, is the introduction of new high technology industry. That is the real problem. I agree with what the hon. Member for Northfield said about the vital role of the universities in that direction.
Of equal importance is the location of Government research establishments. Government research in whatever Department is located in the belt through Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire and the so-called desirable areas of the South-East, which the scientists are supposed to find attractive. One of the great needs is to introduce Government research centres of that sort into the West Midlands. Together with the universities they would form the nuclei of high technology and would produce jobs in the technological industries.
In my constituency I have the additional problem of the local lack of growth of the mining industry. We have enormous coal reserves in the area, running to 200 or 300 million tonnes. At one time it was hoped that the new Park colliery would be used to develop some of those reserves. We realised that there were difficulties because of the chlorine content of the coal, but it was a disappointment to the constituency when that plan was put back. It is an even greater blow that the Coal Board seems lethargic about the proposals for a drift mine which could be used to explore large parts of the reserves.
Although I ascribe some blame to the NCB, at board level, the greater share of the blame must lie with the Government and their restrictive financial policies towards the NCB. The board is conscious that it must balance its budget by 1983–84, and that requirement is a stranglehold on the development of the coal industry.
The Government's policies are at the heart of the problems of the West Midlands. They are already undermining our whole industrial base. That is our indictment of their policies. In my area there is a threat that they may undermine our energy base, and that unless there is a sharp and rapid U-turn by the Government the whole of the West Midlands, which was basically our industrial heartland, will be converted into an arid wasteland. Areas such as my constituency, which were living communities, will be converted into desolate dormitories without hope or a basic future.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I cannot say much about the plight of Wolverhampton in the few moments left me, but as the third hon. Member from the borough to speak in the debate I do not think that I need to emphasise the hardship being felt in the Wolverhampton area.
I wish to say a few words about the splendid campaign being run by the West Midlands county council to attract Nissan to the area and, I hope, especially to Wolverhampton. I accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said, Nissan's decision on the siting of its factory will be a commercial one, but I wish to suggest what advice my right hon. Friend should give the directors of Nissan before they reach their decision.
I accept that Japanese society is more authoritarian and perhaps more respectful than ours, though I do not say that it is necessarily a society in which I would wish to live, so I suspect that the directors will wish to have the advice

of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He may like to point out that in the long term the political direction of industry is not particularly happy for those who get the industry.
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) made that point much better than I can. The political direction of a large firm to a new area may appear to be satisfactory for that area in the short term, but if the industry has to be closed, in the long term far greater misery is caused to the area than would have been caused if it had been allowed to grow organically and slowly, with a diversity of industries.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to tell the Japanese that the stick of the IDC system has gone, and that he will point out that although there are still substantial bribes—as I am rude enough to call them—to take industry away from its natural area of the West Midlands, we have advantages that are not enjoyed by other areas. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will remind the directors of Nissan that in the past industry was driven to Linwood, where a remarkable situation recently arose. Linwood was first run by Rootes, then by Chrysler, then by Peugeot. A situation ensued in which this so-called hard-hearted Government were asked "What are you going to do about Linwood?" The Secretary of State for Scotland asked Peugeot, in effect, whether there was any sum of money that would persuade the company to continue its operation at Linwood. The directors of Peugeot said "No". They had discovered that Linwood was too far from the component manufacturers, but too far away, most of all, from the highly skilled work force that the West Midlands possesses.
The industry had been grafted into an alien land—alien, that is, to motor manufacturing. It simply did not work. I hope that we in the West Midlands will be able to say that we have the support of the West Midlands county council, which is important from a planning point of view, that we have the support of all the employers' federations, which is also important, and that we have the support of the trade unions. One has only to recall what happened when Hitachi wanted to go to the North-East recently. For all the distortions that can be put into the system by the bribes to go elsewhere, industry grows best where it grows naturally. The motor industry grows most naturally in the West Midlands. I hope that my right hon. Friend will indicate these points to the directors of Nissan.

Mr. Jim Marshall: It is my experience that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) always manages to say as much in four minutes, whether about his own constituency or other subjects, as any other hon. Member says in 10.
The House will agree that we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on the problems of the Midlands. There have been times, unfortunately, when I gained the impression that the Midlands was synonymous with the West Midlands. I believe that I am only the fourth speaker from the East Midlands. In one sense I regret that we have to discuss the East Midlands in this context. It is a sign of the times that a formerly prosperous area like the East Midlands should be discussed in the context of this debate.
In the time available I should like to bring to the attention of the House the problems of the East Midlands. I should also like to raise one or two points that previous speakers mentioned. I agree with my hon. Friend the


Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) in her description of the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry as smug and complacent. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the problems of the West Midlands are different from those of the East Midlands, but the Minister misleads himself and the House if he is of the opinion that the problems of the East Midlands are centred on a few industries.
I tell the Minister and the House that the problem goes far deeper. In Derby redundancies have occurred in the Parker factory and in the Qualcast factory. In Nottingham there are problems at T.I. Raleigh. In Leicester redundancies have taken place, and will take place, in the machine tool industry. In Northampton British Timpkin has been on short time since the middle of last year and recently announced 300 redundancies. The problem is far deeper than the Minister would have the House believe. It is the depth of the depression that worries those in the East Midlands.
The Minister was a little churlish when he said that the Opposition did not pay due regard to success stories in the Midlands, and he referred specifically to the Metro project. Obviously we are as proud as are any other hon. Members of the success of the Metro. What concerns us is that such successes are so few and far between. Our view is that the Government's policy makes it more difficult rather than easier to succeed.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) spoke very early in the debate, but found it unnecessary to remain until the end. He said that unemployment was a long-term problem and would not be solved by glib generalisations; nor, he said, were there any easy solutions. But then he made a glib generalisation and suggested an easy answer to the problems of Coventry, which he said were caused solely by overpay and overmanning. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will agree that that is arrant nonsense.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) said that the Government had got off to a good start. That must have something to do with the hon. Gentleman's 15,500 majority at the last election.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) spoke of the difficulty facing young people and the rapid drop in the number of apprenticeships available. I agree with that assessment. I have some evidence of the problem in Leicester. I read, for example, from a letter from the district secretary of the AUEW in Leicester. She says:
We have the situation where many companies are offering no apprenticeships during the coming year—1981—and companies have made apprentices redundant during their training period, which means that their whole career is destroyed, as we have been unable to find firms able to offer alternative training. This will create a vacuum in the future for skilled labour.
That really is a case of inadequate provision being made for the country's future if and when the upturn in the economy that we are promised actually takes place.
I then refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) if only because he made some complimentary remarks about me. He made a courageous speech. It was a typically East Midlands speech in its pragmatism. He said that unemployment was intolerably high, and he also drew attention to the far deeper political problem when he said that economic assumptions would have to be questioned if the forecast figures of unemployment appeared to be coming true. That needs to

be said more often. It was said also by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox). It cannot be stressed too often to Ministers.
I want now to refer in more detail to the problems that beset the East Midlands. Those of us who represent seats in the region will agree that it managed to hold out against the recession much longer than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, despite the Government's mismanagement of the economy.
Looking at the figures for July 1980, we see that economic activity was still at a very high level. In Market Harborough unemployment was only 2.2 per cent. In Loughborough, an area to which the hon. Member for Melton referred, it was 3.5 per cent. In Northamptonshire it was 4.2 per cent. In Derbyshire it was 4.4 per cent. That prosperity has ended. In many ways the recession has hit the region with a vengeance. The watershed came in April and May 1981, when many firms appeared to lose their orders overnight. Without doubt, the East Midlands is in the worst recession that it has experienced since 1945. If anything, the slump has been more dramatic than elsewhere in the country.
Let me illustrate that again by referring to some unemployment figures published on Tuesday of last week, which indicate that unemployment in Market Harborough has quadrupled. In Leicestershire it has almost doubled. In Northamptonshire it has increased two and a half times, from 4·2 per cent. to 10·6 per cent. In Kettering unemployment has increased from 4 per cent. to 11·6 per cent. Unemployment in Corby is 22 per cent., or almost one in four of the adult population, in the region as a whole 150,000 people are now out of work, representing an unemployment rate of 9·3 per cent.
In addition to the unemployment figures, tens of thousands of jobs are being maintained through the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. Unfortunately—I regret saying this—many of those jobs must be considered at risk, particularly in the hosiery, clothing, footwear and engineering industries.
It is no use Ministers, from the Prime Minister clown to the Secretary of State for Employment, pretending that in the East Midlands, of all regions, excessive wage demands and poor industrial relations are the cause of unemployment. I am sure that there would be general acceptance that the East Midlands region in general is a model of moderation in wage negotiations and wage settlements. It is also a model of good relations between management and workers.
Grabbing trade unionists and poor industrial relations are not to blame for the problem faced by the East Midlands. Most of the problems can be placed fairly and squarely at the door of the present Administration. There is widespread dismay throughout the East Midlands region about these influences, which have brought about the region's present industrial problems.
The influences most often quoted by both industrialists and trade unionists are the high value of the pound, interest rates, public sector charges—referred to by the hon. Member for Melton in the form of telephone charges—increasing import penetration, particularly in the textile industry and, more recently, energy costs.
Before the Government start crowing about interest charges—the Under-Secretary of State went down that path in his speech—let me quote Mr. Patrick Radford, the regional chairman of CBI. He said:


The council were disappointed generally about the Budget and stressed that some firms would lose all the benefit from the cut in minimum lending rate because of higher fuel prices.
He also criticised the unforeseen and artificial problems caused by arbitrary Government intervention. As an example, Mr. Radford pointed out that two Derbyshire pipe suppliers—Stanton and Stavely, and Clay Cross—have seen demand plummet due to cash limits on the water and gas industries as well as a curb on public sector capital spending. He said:
These companies need steady demand not violent fluctuations caused by Government intervention.
If I understood the speech by the Secretary of State for Employment at the weekend, that will raise some sympathy in his breast, because I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was now in favour of increasing public expenditure on capital projects.
The shadow of Thatcherism hangs over the East Midlands, bringing with it more and more redundancies and higher records of unemployment. The Chancellor's Budget is looked upon at best with disdain and at worst with outright anger. However, whatever the emotional reaction to the Budget, there is a unanimity of view that it offers no solution to the region's problems and needs. In addition, all areas and all industries in the East Midlands have been affected by the recession. Unemployment in the construction industry has increased by 45 per cent. since 1979. The increase in mining and quarrying since then has been 27 per cent. But the manufacturing sector is the worst affected. Unemployment in it has increased by 137 per cent., from 21,485 in 1979 to 51,207 this year. The shrinking of the manufacturing base is the worst aspect of the recession, since if that is happening in the East Midlands it augurs ill for the country as a whole in terms of future prosperity and levels of employment.
I deal next with one or two of the areas to which my hon. Friends and hon. Members have drawn attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) mentioned Corby, where one in four is now unemployed because of the ending of steel making there. It ended in spite of the valiant effort by my hon. Friend and the community as a whole to try to maintain the operation. I see the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office sitting on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps I may therefore refer to Hinckley, which is in his constituency of Bosworth. Hinckley has problems that stem largely from the problems in the West Midlands, since many of the people in Hinckley are in the Coventry travel-to-work area. Those people, like the people of Coventry, have been hit by short-time working and closures.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) referred to the problems there, but I emphasise that it is heavy engineering that is having to cope with a great deal of short-time working. The hon. Member for Melton referred to the difficulties in Melton Mowbray in the hosiery and knitwear, clothing and footwear industries, but he will know that Melton Mowbray is famous for its pies and pet foods. I do not know whether there is any relationship between the two. Neither of those industries is doing particularly well.
In Nottingham 4,000 engineering workers are on short time, and the same applies to over 2,000 engineering workers in Northampton and—I say this with particular regret—to 4,360 engineering workers in Leicester. The problems facing the hosiery and knitwear, clothing and

footwear industries have been described many times in the House and I do not wish to go into them at great length this evening, but unless action is taken to curb unfair competition, whether it be from the Far East, from the State trading countries or from the United States, those three industries will disappear.
It may surprise you to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many people in the East Midlands voted Tory in 1979. They did so because they lived in an area that they thought had most to benefit from the Thatcherite experiment. They thought that they would enjoy tax cuts because employment was available in plenty. They worked in small to medium-sized companies which have maintained good labour relations and invested in sufficient amounts to be able to keep up with their competitors. They are the industries that the Prime Minister said that she was pledged to support.
In addition, the five counties comprising the East Midlands have a wide range of industry which is totally different from that of the West Midlands. Its industry covers bicycles, pharmaceuticals and high technology, and it has good communications. Only two years ago the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said in Leicester that Leicester was Britain's most successful city. One can permit politicians a little hyperbole, but that assessment was not far from the truth. He might have gone further and said that the East Midlands, of which Leicester, Nottingham and Derby are the linchpins, was the most prosperous region in Britain. The base of that prosperity is being undermined, if not destroyed, and the people of the East Midlands regret placing their trust in the Tories.
If one could look forward to the future with confidence the sacrifice might be worth while. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to the document published recently by the Midlands branch of the Manpower Services Commission. That offers little optimism either for the Midlands or for the Government. It concludes that in the East Midlands there is little indication of any improvement in the current employment position. Indeed, with so many jobs maintained by the temporary short-time working compensation scheme it sees a further substantial decline in jobs. In addition, and perhaps worse from the Government's view, it foresees no recovery in production levels until 1982, and suggests that even then output will be increased with fewer workers. Young and unskilled people will be most affected. The commission underlines the inadequacy in the numbers of apprenticeships.
I shall refer to comments which the Prime Minister has made in the past as well as comments made as recently as Saturday. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that unemployment doubled under the last Labour Government. In most parts of the East Midlands unemployment has doubled in the last 12 months. The only thing that the Government have managed to do in the last
In a speech at Cardiff on Saturday—and it was a small meeting, even though all the Tories in Wales were there—the Prime Minister said:
This is the road I am resolved to follow. This is the path I must go".
The road that she is following is strewn with bankruptcies, unemployment and the fear of unemployment. The Prime Minister continued:
Let's praise the Chancellor for his judgment—in tactics, flexibility; in strategy, resolution.


I think that that is supposed to be complimentary. If the same words were applied to the Secretary of State for Employment they would be condemnatory. We are supposed to praise the Chancellor.
It is not up to me to comment on the Chancellor's judgment. That has been called into question on a number of occasions. Perhaps I am the least appropriate person to make that judgment. Surely "tactics" must be shorthand for unemployment. "Flexibility" must be shorthand for more unemployment, "strategy" for more and more unemployment, and "resolution" more and more and yet more unemployment.
The road that the Prime Minister is following is the road to economic bankruptcy. I suggest, with due humility, that she takes a different road, namely, the one that leads from No. 10 to Buckingham Palace, and there submits her resignation and asks for the Dissolution of this Parliament, so that the country as a whole can pass judgment on this incompetent Conservative Government, who have visited the evil of unemployment upon us on a scale not seen in this country since the 1930s. The country would then be able to vote in a Labour Government committed to reducing the present highly unacceptable level of unemployment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): Were I to reply fully to the debate I should need to hold all the senior Offices of State. I apologise if I am unable to reply in full to all the matters that have been raised, and I assure all those who have spoken that I shall pass on their remarks to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State concerned.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He looked relaxed and calm—much more so than I was a few weeks ago when I was in the same position. I hope that he will continue in that role for many more occasions. I appreciate that it must be difficult for him—now that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) has deserted his party—to make sure that all is quiet on the Western Front. It must also be difficult for him because although it is an Opposition Supply day, Labour Members have not put in an appearance to demonstrate their concern about what is a very important matter, namely, the high level of unemployment in the Midlands. There are now eight Labour Members present, and I do not believe that Labour, Conservative or Liberal supporters would consider that a particularly good turnout.

Mr Gwilym Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the only time we have had the opportunity to debate unemployment in the West Midlands or the Midlands has been on Supply days, in time offered by the Opposition?

Mr. Morrison: That proves my point. This is exactly the time that one would expect to see more Labour Members present. In fact, there are twice as many Conservative Members present as there are Labour Members.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) rightly said that this was an important debate because it concerned that part of the country which was the powerhouse and engine of Great Britain. I shall return to that matter. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) and The Wrekin (Mr.

Hawksley) pointed out at some length that the situation in the West and East Midlands was determined by what happened in the world. The Midlands as a whole is highly geared to manufacturing, and therefore has to look to what is happening in the world generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) put his finger on the problem. He said—I paraphrase his remarks—that the trouble was that we had stayed in the 1940s and 1950s, had not modernised enough, and were now paying the penalty. I regret to say that he is right.
Not long ago I went to Birmingham for the day, to hear for myself what was happening. I enjoyed my visit. I was told beforehand that all was gloom and doom. However, I inquired whether it would be possible to meet some people from new businesses. During the morning, before meeting the West Midlands county council over lunch and again after lunch, I met representatives of 10 small businesses. When I asked "Flow is business?", somewhat to my surprise and certainly to the surprise of many of those accompanying me, the reply was "Very good indeed.".
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) talked about the small companies in his constituency. He talked about IBM, a new superstore, and a new hotel in Warwick. Those are the companies of the future.
In the first two months of this year the two Midlands small firms centres received over 5,000 inquiries—an increase of 65 per cent. over the same period last year. Nearly half the inquiries related to the starting up of a new business. That is the future.

Mr Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Mrs. Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Morrison: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mrs Knight: While he was in Birmingham, did my hon. Friend discover that, because of the duties laid upon employers, it is extremely expensive to employ people? Even the local council has people on double time on Sundays, because it is so expensive to pay all the necessary dues before it even starts to pay salaries. Did anyone raise this matter with my hon. Friend? It is a substantial point.

Mr Morrison: Nobody raised it, but now that my hon. Friend has done so I shall—without any commitment—look into the matter.

Mr Robinson: rose—

Mr Morrison: I shall not give way. I allowed myself 20 minutes because I knew that hon. Members wanted to make their constituency speeches.
Not all is gloom and doom. Every month 250,000 people leave the unemployment register, and a large proportion of them come from the Midlands.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), who opened the debate, rightly asked "What will you do?" We have already built a bridge between the past Great Britain and the future Great Britain. That is why we have special measures, some of which are operated by the Department of Employment and others by the Manpower Services Commission.
In the Midlands as a whole there are just over 181,000 people benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. In the West Midlands there are 5,252 people benefiting from the job release scheme, and


there are 4,520 people benefiting from it in the East Midlands. Between last April and 28 February, 36,310 people in the West Midlands and 17,290 in the East Midlands benefited from the youth opportunities programme. Therefore, to suggest that we do nothing is to give entirely the wrong impression.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked about the youth opportunities programme. I am told that on 12 March there were still 16 young people living in Melton Mowbray who had not had a YOP offer. However, the local employment officer was very hopeful that they would receive an offer by Easter. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some indication of what is happening in his constituency.
But more important than the special measures—although they in themselves are desperately important—is what is happening in terms of real jobs. I do not know whether Labour Members heard the good news today. It was announced that an agreement had been reached on one of the largest export projects ever won by the United Kingdom—the sale of a very large coal-fired power station to Hong Kong, worth at least £550 million. This deal will provide about 34,000 man-years of work in United Kingdom firms, including over 6,000 man-years in the West Midlands. That is thanks to a partnership between industry, the Government and the City. I know that the City is not very popular with Labour Members—

Mr. Sever: Obviously, any opportunities which are given to those seeking work in the Midlands are to be welcomed, and we welcome them. But will the Minister address himself to the essential underlying problem, which is that, notwithstanding the schemes that the Government are operating, there are still thousands of young people who, having gone through these schemes, discover that they are unable to find what he calls a real job at the end of it?

Mr. Morrison: I should not have given way, because I shall be coming to that part a little later.
With regard to the Government's help to the Midlands—

Mr. Michael English: What about the East Midlands?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has not been in the debate all day. I have been talking about the East Midlands and will mention it again.
We have two enterprise zones, one in Corby and one in Dudley. I am sorry that the Liberal Party is not entirely enthusiastic about enterprise zones. That is a pity. In theory it should be, with its traditions. We have an inner city partnership scheme in Birmingham and a programme authority scheme in Wolverhampton, with the inner city partnership giving £14·8 million of taxpayers' money and the programme authority in Wolverhampton giving £2·8 million. To me, that denotes that we are—[Interruption.] It appears that Labour Members do not like the idea of the Government helping in this way. That is fine by me, but they should know that many of their constituents like the idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin quite understandably raised the issue of Telford. He also

requested assisted area status for his constituency. I know—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry pointed out—that my hon. Friend is bringing a delegation to discuss this matter. As he will appreciate, I cannot give any commitment from the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that my hon. Friends from the Department of Industry and the Secretary of State for Industry have noted the forceful way in which he put his case and have listened very carefully to it.
Earlier in the day there was a good deal of talk about the manifesto of the 364 economists. I am always rather bamboozled by economists. They remind me of the sort of person who, when one has lost a telephone number, says "I will give you a guesstimate". I looked at the list of people who signed the manifesto and I came across the name of Lord Balogh—

Miss Boothroyd: There are other names.

Mr Morrison: As a certain celebrated lady said. "He would, wouldn't he?"
Then I came across the name of Lord Kaldor. Again, "He would, wouldn't he?"
The funny thing is that they did not agree on what should be done but only on what should not be done. When we consider the policies that have been pursued as a result of their promotion over the last 20 years we know why we are where we are today. Mr. Samuel Brittan, who is by no means an uncritical admirer of the Government, said in today's edition of the Financial Times that the attack on the Government's policies by 364 academic economists
was the best possible sign that these policies might be right after all…policy which has alienated so many of the great and the good is unlikely to be entirely wrong.
The high pound has been discussed at some length, but Opposition Members did not mention the fact that as a result of the high pound several manufacturing companies in their constituencies can buy raw materials at a very much reduced price. They also failed to mention that during the expansion of the German and Japanese economies a high deutschemark and a high yen were in evidence. I do not know what the low pound did for the Labour Government. It sank to the equivalent of ․1·56. It did not seem to do much for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington spoke at some length about overmanning. I wholeheartedly concurred with him when he said that he could not put the blame entirely in any one place. He said that the situation could be the fault of management, of trade unions, and even of the Government. I agree with that. It is utterly pointless to say who was wrong. We were all wrong. Therefore, let us look to the future.

Mr Dudley Smith: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's penetrating analysis. I understand that I was castigated by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for not being present throughout the whole of his diatribe. Does my hon. Friend realise that nearly all the Conservative Members who represent the Midlands have been in the Chamber throughout our proceedings? There has been a thin sprinkling of hon. Members on the Socialist Benches. One Liberal Member has been present, who is not taken too seriously, namely, our old friend the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). There has been no one to speak on behalf of the Social Democrats.

Mr Morrison: My hon. Friend may know that I have already made that point. The hon. Member for


Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that he had read a CBI report to the effect that there would be a permanent pool of 2 million unemployed people. How would the Labour Party operate? How would it pay for the expansion that it promotes?

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Mr. Morrison: If Labour Members want to print money they should bear in mind that it means inflation and fewer jobs. If they wish to tax more they should realise that there will be less incentive for investment and for business. How will they do it?

Mr. Robinson: rose—

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member for Ladywood asked for a reduction in the minimum lending rate. Since last November four points have been knocked off the minimum lending rate. Those four points mean £1·4 billion back in the economy. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is not enough, but how could the Government fund their borrowing requirement if they were to slash interest rates? The hon. Gentleman may say that he knows the answer, but I believe that the Government's policy is right. It would be a disaster—

Mr. Sever: rose—

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman should know that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the deputy leader of the Labour Party said at the Dispatch Box that spending one's way out does not work. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends now suggest that they should spend their way out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) talked about the Nissan car company, which has decided to invest in Great Britain. At least, we hope that it has, and that it will not be frightened away. Surely that is the greatest compliment that could be paid to the Government's policies. I am sorry that the Shadow Secretary of State for Industry does not want the company here. I understand that some Opposition Members would like it to see it in the West Midlands. The fact that a major Japanese motor car manufacturer would like to come to this country proves that perhaps we have more advantages than France, Germany, Italy and other—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Parliamentary Commissioner (Consular Complaints) Bill[Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Parliamentary Commissioner (Consular Complaints) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

10 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The essential purpose of the Bill, in the words of the long title, is
to extend the circumstances in which complaints about consular actions can be made under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
It is a short Bill, but I should like briefly to trace the background to its introduction.
When the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was created in 1967 the actions of British officials overseas were specifically excluded from the Commissioner's scrutiny under schedule 3(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Complaints by British citizens resident overseas were also excluded under section 6(4) of the Act.
In its fourth report for the 1977–78 Session the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration recorded the conclusions of its review of methods of access to and the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. One of the conclusions was:
The Commissioner should be able to investigate complaints by British citizens about assistance requested from consular offices and overseas posts, including complaints by British citizens resident abroad.
The Labour Government accepted the first part of that recommendation, and the Parliamentary Commissioner Order 1979 brought within the Commissioner's jurisdiction
action which is taken by an officer (not being an honorary consular officer) in the exercise of a consular function on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom and which is so taken in relation to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Until the Government's nationality proposals have been enacted into law, the term "British citizen" will be imprecise as a legal term. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out in the Parliamentary Commissioner Order 1979 exactly what was intended. That accounts for the reference to
a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Similar considerations apply to the Bill and account for the similar language in it.
The 1979 order thus gave effect to the first part of the Select Committee's recommendation by bringing within the Parliamentary Commissioner's jurisdiction consular complaints by citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies with the right of abode and resident in the United Kingdom who are travelling abroad. It did not and could not—because a separate Act was required—bring within the Parliamentary Commissioner's jurisdiction consular complaints by citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies with the right of abode in the United Kingdom but resident abroad, which was the second part of the Select Committee's recommendation.
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the second part of the recommendation. There is only one operative clause namely, clause 1, which amends section 6(4) of the

Parlamentary Commissioner Act 1967 so as to permit complaints to be made about consular actions overseas where the aggrieved person, although not a resident in the United Kingdom, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies and has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
This small Bill has been the subject of a certain amount of debate during its earlier stages. That debate was largely concerned with the question how far we should extend the right that is given by the Bill—for example, whether we should extend it to the citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies with the right of abode, as the Bill does, or whether we should extend it further. I emphasise that the Bill extends the right of complaint to the Commissioner to those who do not have the right at present. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept it as the generous liberalising measure that it is and will welcome it.
The Bill is not restrictive. It does not take away any rights already held by anyone. On the contrary, it extends the right to appeal to the Commissioner to about 3 million more people who do not now have it. It is worth noting that the majority of these people residing overseas, although citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, are not United Kingdom taxpayers. Although they are entitled to British consular protection, they make little or no financial contribution to the maintenance of the Government, who supply that protection and maintain the office of the Commissioner to whom these 3 milllion people are to be given the right of appeal. However, these 3 million have close connections with the country—often close family connections. We think it right that they should be able to appeal to the Commissioner on any consular maladministration from which they claim to have suffered injustice.
Labour Members have argued that other categories of person—namely, all citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, whether that citizenship is acquired through a connection with the United Kingdom or with a present or former dependent territory, as well as British protected persons and British subjects without citizenship—should have the right of complaining against any alleged injustice that they feel they may have suffered at the hands of a career consular official. That would extend the right of complaint to a further 4 million, making a total extension of 7 million. The extra 4 million would have, in general, less connection with the United Kingdom than the 3 million who will be covered by the Bill, and many of them might have no connection with the United Kingdom apart from the mere fact of citizenship.
We think that that would be going too far. We have to draw a line somewhere, and we think it right to draw the line at citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies with the right of abode. Paragraph 11 of the Government's observations on the fourth report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Cmnd. 7449, states:
The Government are also prepared to consider whether the Commissioner's jurisdiction should be extended to cover complaints by citizens of the UK and Colonies travelling or resident abroad, provided that the action complained of was taken in respect of a citizen who has the right of abode in this country (ie a patrial).
That is the test that we have adopted. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the reply to the fourth report was published in January 1979. Therefore, it was published by the Labour Government. We think that they


were right in drawing the line at that point. We take the same view, and that view is the one to which the Bill gives effect. I ask the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Roland Moyle: The Opposition welcome the extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to the consular services, and from that point of view we wish the Bill a favourable remaining career in the House. That is likely to be brief. As the Minister said, we have grave reservations about the restrictions of the right of complaint to those with the right of abode. Those are our old friends the patrials, as we mentioned in Committee. If we are talking about consistency, I remind the Minister that when we were debating the Immigration Act 1971, the Labour Party opposed the concept of patriality, and we have always been against it.
As the Minister said, in Committee we put on record that we want all groups connected with the United Kingdom and who might use the consular services with a view to settling in the United Kingdom to have the right of complaint to the Ombudsman. We moved an amendment to that effect which the Government rejected. The Government must bear in mind that many of these people, who may not be taxpayers in the United Kingdom, may become taxpayers in the future and, possibly, voters as well.
The debate in Committee allowed us to probe a number of problems. There is, however, one group to which we alluded whose problem seemed substantial. I regret that not only did the Minister avoid dealing with that group in Committee but, despite the fact that he was given notice about our concern, he has failed to deal with it again now. I refer to the East African Asians, especially the group which resides in India. The Minister did not refer to them, and, as the Bill is now likely to be passed, that group will be excluded from making representations to the Ombudsman. The result is that the injustices from which they are suffering—to which I shall refer later—will continue to be perpetrated.
I shall outline the problem briefly. A number of Asians lived in East Africa before that part of the world was granted independence. When independence came, it was felt that the Asians might be under pressure from the indigenous Africans after independence because they held positions of modest privilege in those societies. They performed a number of services and some were independent business men. Again, I mention consistency. The late lain Macleod promised them British passports and entry into this country on independence as a way of assuaging their fears that they might be under some pressure.
By 1968 those fears had become reality, but at that stage the United Kingdom felt that it could admit those Asians only at a rate with which we could cope, so a quota of special vouchers was imposed on those groups. Under pressure, some of those Asians went back to India, which took them on the basis that ultimately this country would admit them. The quota for Asians, whether they came from East Africa or were living in India, was 1,500 per annum. In 1972 that was increased to 3,500 per annum. In 1975 the number was increased to 5,000 per annum. The latest increase allowed the East African queues to evaporate.
Unfortunately, the queues of Asians living in India who were connected with East Africa still remain. I do not

know what the quota was for those groups of intending arrivals. It might have been 500 per annum, but the figure has never been quoted. As a result of the Bill, if it is passed in the form in which it stands, the problems of that group are likely to be unalleviated because of the lack of any ability to complain to the Ombudsman.
The quota for East Africa and India is not being taken up. In 1968, the quota was 1,500 per annum and slightly more than 1,000 heads of households, who may or may not have brought all or part of their families with them, were admitted. In 1972 the quota was 3,500 and 3,260 were admitted. In 1975 the quota was increased to 5,000 and 3,789 were admitted. That increase in the quota led to the evaporation of the East African queues. Since then, there has been a rapid fall in the number of Asians being admitted to this country as compared with the quotas. In 1979, the last year for which we have figures, the quota was 5,000 and only 1,604 heads of households were admitted. There was a big gap between the quota and the number of admissions.
There is plenty of slack in the scheme, yet there is a lengthening waiting list in India. For example, in 1977 families had to wait three years to be admitted to this country under the quota. By 1978 the waiting time was four years, by 1979 it was four years and nine months, last year it was five years and two months and this year it was estimated to be five and a half years.
We should like to know whether the lengthening waiting list is a matter of Government policy. There is large-scale unemployment in the United Kingdom, and against that background and, possibly, in the belief that the groups in India should be encouraged to settle there, the Government may have taken a deliberate decision to slow down the rate of admission. On the other hand, it may be due to consular inefficiency.
If it is the first reason, we shall know where we stand. This is not the time to debate that decision, but it could be debated on another stage. However, if consular inefficiency is the cause, that situation will be perpetuated by the passage of the Bill, because access to the Ombudsman is not being extended to those groups in India and they will be ragarded by many people as suffering a considerable injustice.
The whole problem is not a matter of mere impatience on the part of those concerned. The waiting list is extending so rapidly that it is becoming a self-perpetuating list. A number of applications are being made by young people who, if applications had been dealt with earlier, would have been regarded as coming here as part of a family on its voucher. They now have to be dealt with as separate cases.
For example, Mrs. B, a widow, applied for a voucher in 1975, when she had as dependants four daughters aged 21, 19, 17 and 8 and a son aged 13. If she had been issued with a voucher promptly, the five children would have qualified for entry certificates as her dependants, but by the time she is issued with a voucher this year the two oldest daughters will be over 25 and will require vouchers in their own right, for which they lodged applications in 1975 in order to safeguard their positions.
There is uncertainty. In 1978, people founded plans on the basis of a four-year waiting list. They find that this year the waiting list has extended to five and a half years. That may be the result of consular inefficiency. We have to assume that that is so in the absence of any Government statement to the contrary. But there can be no complaint


to the Ombudsman as a result of that. We are under a compulsion, by our agreement with the Indian Government, eventually to admit all these people if they so wish.
As a result of an administrative decision, vouchers are issued in India on the basis of first come, first served. They could have been issued, as in East Africa, on the basis of priority categories so that those in the most vulnerable position were given the first chance of coming to this country. This might have been an issue that the Ombudsman could have examined if the Bill had been amended in the way that we wanted.
The result of the manner in which the scheme is administered is that families are prevented from travelling to the United Kingdom as a unit. This often means that more than one of the limited number of vouchers is used for getting each family to this country. If the scheme was administered in another way, only one voucher for each family would be needed. There are one or two examples of cases of that sort. Mrs. D, a widow, wrote to the British deputy high commissioner in Bombay in October 1978.

Mr John Page: What name?

Mr. Moyle: Mrs. D, a widow. I am not declaring the actual name. Mrs. D wrote to the British deputy high commissioner in Bombay in October 1978. She said:
When I applied for a voucher, my son's name was included as a dependant though his age at that time was above 18 years. I am now advised that as he is above 18 years of age, he will have to apply separately. Will you please guide me in the matter and let me know whether he will have to apply separately?
The reply was:
The decision is up to your son if he wishes to apply. It is not compulsory in any way.
The use of such opaque language might have been regarded by some as consular inefficiency that required investigation by the Ombudsman. In the form in which the Bill is likely to be passed, that sort of complaint to the Ombudsman is excluded.
Mr E applied for a voucher in April 1975. He listed as his dependants two sons, then aged 17 and 18, and daughter. Two older sons and a daughter were already settled in the United Kingdom. He received his voucher in January 1980 but his sons, then aged 22 and 23, were refused entry on the ground that they were no longer dependent, although only one had taken occasional work. Both sons were left behind. As a result, three vouchers will be used to admit a single family whereas one would have been sufficient at the time of application.
The other problems are legion. Medical examination can be conducted only at Bombay, about 260 to 500 miles from the main emigration areas. A visit there can entail a stay of a week in Bombay and can cost intending emigrants to this country about £500. If they go to East Africa, they may be told that they can apply for a voucher only in India. Three different overlapping forms have to be filled in. Ninety per cent. of the applications to come to this country originate in Gujarat, but the register of applications is held in Delhi. There are complaints about delays in the issue of passports. A valid passport and the issue of an entry voucher are required as a condition for admission to this country.
There are complaints that letters are not replied to. The British High Commission says that this is due to the

unreliability of the post in India. If the Bill had been passed in a different form, a complaint about all these matters could have been made to the Ombudsman.
A high standard of proof of identity is now required by our consular services in India in administering the scheme. Whether such a high standard of proof should be required is a proper field of investigation for the Ombusdman with a view to deciding whether there has been maladministration due to over-elaboration and over-perfection. That will now be precluded if the Bill passes in the form in which it now comes before the House.
It would have been interesting to hear the Government's justification for lack of provision for complaints to the Ombudsman for this group of people in view of the large number of complaints about the manner in which the scheme is administered originating from East African Asians, who have decided to reside, temporarily in many cases, in India. So far, the only explanations have been that of cost and that, if people are encouraged to complain, they will cease to accept injustice and will begin to complain. Both those reasons have only to be stated to be shown to be totally invalid. They cannot be accepted by the Opposition.

Mr. Greville Janner: The Bill introduces a new, important and very useful provision. The Opposition are only sad that its applicability is limited so that amongst the people who need it most are those who will get it least.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) talked a great deal about the problems of the citizens of East Africa who are unable to make use of the provisions of the Bill specifically because of the exclusion that the person—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member so early in his speech and I did not pull up the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) when he made mention of these matters, but strictly on Third Reading we ought to stick to what is in the Bill and not draw attention to provisions which might have been in it if other things had happened.

Mr Janner: I hope that I have not given the impression that I was drawing attention to any words which did not appear in the Bill. The new subsection (5)(b) provides that a complaint may be entertained only where
the person aggrieved is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who, under section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971, has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
My complaint is that many of my constituents are citizens of the United Kingdom with the right of abode here but that many of their families are citizens of the United Kingdom by right—they are entitled to come here—but at the moment have no right of abode in the United Kingdom.
As the Minister said, the Bill restricts the use of these new rights and, until the Government's proposals are enacted, the terms will remain imprecise. The Government's proposals to which the Minister referred are those in the new British Nationality Bill, which the Opposition regard as divisive, unfair, uncivilised, unreasonable, unkind and totally lacking in the sort of compassion which is introduced into our law by clause 1 of this Bill. In other words, here is an enactment which is


intended to create a compassionate arrangement to enable people to complain about the acts and omissions of servants of the Crown but which prevents such complaints from being made by the very people who are most likely to need to make them—people who are not able to comply with the rules because their right of abode is restricted by current legislation which will be made much worse by legislation which is on its way.
A person has the right of abode: that means quite simply the right, as of the time of complaint, to reside here. A person will have the right to abide in this country when he is here in accordance with the rules and because the consular officials have exercised their powers in the proper manner. On the other hand, until those officials exercise their powers in a proper manner, these people have no right to abide here. Therefore, there is a deliberate exclusion from these rights of the very people to whom they are most applicable in compassion but not in law.
In the good city of Leicester we have about 60,000 Asians, most of whom are Gujaratis and most of whom do not initially come with all of their families. As a result, an aggrieved person left behind will not, in accordance with the terms of the Bill as it stands, be able to complain to the new Ombudsman. I have visited India many times, and I have been deeply concerned at the lack of compassion in our rules and the way in which no swift right of complaint is currently provided. I understand that that is what the Bill is about. There are cases in my constituency of people who have been waiting six or seven years to come here. They have the right, as citizens, to come here, but until they arrive they have no right of abode as described by the Bill.
These people would have had the right to complain about their treatment, but that right is being specifically excluded by this otherwise excellent Bill. I cannot see why we give a right with one hand while taking it away with the other for so many of our citizens who should be entitled to it. Once a person is a citizen in this country he should have the same rights as every other citizen, whether or not he was born here. If he has the right to be a citizen of this country he should have the right to bring his family here under our law. If his family is being messed around by consular officials, as sometimes happens, those people should have the right to complain, not here but where they are suffering. That is all that we are saying.
Whilst reading of the right of abode I was reminded of that marvellous hymn:
Abide with me; fast falls the eventide
But until people have the right to abide with me they will not have the right to complain that they are not allowed to abide with me. Our law is being made increasingly and excessively unkind, and to lack in compassion, by the very measure that the Government are rightly bringing in to increase rights. In those circumstances I beg the Minister to reconsider this exclusion so as to give the right to the people who need it so badly.

Mr. John Page: I came here this evening to congratulate, in a mild way, my hon. Friend the Minister on his sensible and wide Bill. I am surprised at the tone of the speeches by Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) delivered a speech that, when read in Hansard, will show up the diamond-hard, critical brutality of his words, which far belie the decency and general good sense of his personality

and the way in which he addressed the House. I hope that by speaking as I do I shall make a less strong cocktail of the vitriol of his speech. He talked about the Bill being a defence against unemployment in the United Kingdom—

Mr. Moyle: I speculated that the reason for the Government's policy might be to protect the employment market in this country, but I did not advance the idea that that was the reason behind the Bill.

Mr Page: The impression that the right hon. Member gave in his intervention is exactly the impression with which I was left when he originally spoke. He makes a kind of a smear. He says "I would not dream of smearing the Government by saying that they might be considering that the Bill might have a certain effect." It is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. He adopted an academic approach to the Bill.
The right of abode is what the Bill and so much other legislation is concerned with. Nationality is secondary to right of abode. The Government and the Minister have got it absolutely right. Patriality should be the touchstone on which the Bill is based.
If the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East were accepted, a full-time ombudsman would have to be attached to every consulate in Asia, because every person who applied to abide in Britain would have the right to appeal to an ombudsman.
An ombudsman is not a person in the slips but a long-stop near the boundary. It is easy for hon. Members to send a dicey case to the ombudsman, but that is an unfair use of the ombudsman. All the arguments presented tonight contrary to the spirit of the Bill do not carry much weight.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East made a most dishonourable and uncharacteristic attribution to the Government. He suggested that when the Government legislate they should take into consideration the fact that some people whom he suggests are being legislated against might in future become voters in this country. He suggested that that Government, whom I so wholeheartedly support, especially in the configuration of my hon. Friend the Minister, should demean themselves by going vote catching in the Orient among people who might dream of coming here in the future.
That is the blank cheque that Labour Members offer. They say that any one of the 3,000 million people who, up to 1945, were entitled to a right of abode here, should be able to say "Oh, come on. If you do not let us in we will apply to the Ombudsman and gain entry."
The more that I heard today in the debate, the more I was reinforced in my confidence in the Bill as it stands and in its presentation by the Minister. Everything that has been said by the Opposition has reinforced my confidence.

Mr. Reg Race: The House has not had an opportunity to consider the Bill before, because it was in a Second Reading Committee upstairs. We have not had a debate on the Floor about its merits.
In Committee upstairs the Opposition put forward a reasoned amendment to include those who are excluded by clause 1. In his speech tonight my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) referred quite properly to the biggest and most important group who are excluded by the Bill from going to the Parliamentary


Commissioner. It ill becomes the Minister to tell us that we are not concerned with the mere fact of nationality, and that we should be concerned only with patriality. British subjects without the right of abode—in East Africa, India, Pakistan, or anywhere else—who apply to enter the United Kingdom and are shabbily treated by immigration officers or consular officials, in Delhi, Bombay or anywhere else, should have the right to go to the Ombudsman.
This is the first chance that the House has had to vote on the issue. I welcome the Bill because of its extension of facilities for United Kingdom citizens resident abroad, but because it excludes that large group of people who often have legitimate grievances against British consular officials, I shall vote against its Third Reading.
The Government have not made out a proper case for drawing the line where they have. In Committee the Minister made it clear that the Government were drawing the line between patrials and non-patrials. Not a scrap of justification was put forward for that. Tonight the hon. Gentleman quoted the arguments of the Select Committee and the Government's response in previous years. On neither occasion was the House given any reason why the line should be drawn between patrials and non-patrials.
The Opposition must be forgiven if they are a little suspicious about that distinction. Many of us believe that it is a racialist distinction. I believe that with a Bill of this kind, extending only to patrials the right to go to the Ombudsman, the Government are legislating on a racialist basis.

Mr George Foulkes: Does not the fact that the Bill has been dealt with in the way that it has increase my hon. Friend's suspicion? It indicates that the Government have been trying to sneak it through without any real discussion on the Floor of the House.

Mr Race: I agree. It was a mistake to send the Bill upstairs. I believe that the Government were trying to sneak it through on the quiet, without anyone noticing the terms of clause 1. Our public duty now is to make it clear that the Bill gives a right to some people but does not extend it to everyone who should have it. The Government should take the Bill away and return with one that simply extends to patrials and non-patrials alike the right to go to the Ombudsman.
The people who are excluded from the Bill are more in need of protection by the Parliamentary Commissioner than are some of those who are included. Those who are eligible as British subjects without the right of abode, who can apply for a special voucher, are in an administrative maze. They have no right of appeal, because the special voucher system is not in the immigration rules. It is an administrative scheme, devised by the Government and administered by civil servants. Nobody covered by that scheme has any statutory right.
I believe that Parliament has a duty to protect those people when civil servants or consular officials make mistakes, when passports are mislaid, or when people are asked to go 500 miles when the whole thing could be done by post. They also need protection when medical examinations are called for unnecessarily, or when they have to travel unnecessarily to Bombay.
On Friday evening I was visited by a constituent who had relatives in India who had applied for a special voucher and wanted to get an entry certificate to come as

visitors while waiting for their special voucher. They had been waiting five and a half years for the special voucher, and were asked by consular officials to go to New Delhi on three occasions simply to be interviewed for an entry certificate. At the end, they were refused. If that had been about the special voucher application, it would have been exactly the kind of case that ought to be considered by the Ombudsman. Those people should have the right to go to the Ombudsman if they believe that they have been shabbily treated by consular officials.
I do not believe that many people would exercise that function, or that our constituents would go to the Parliamentary Commissioner, whether in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, on a frivolous basis. But it must be realised that everybody in the United Kingdom, whether a United Kingdom citizen or not, has the right to go to the Ombudsman. Under the 1967 Act, everybody who is resident in the United Kingdom—that is the only qualification—has the right to go to the Parliamentary Commissioner. That includes aliens, Commonwealth citizens, United Kingdom citizens, and everybody else.
The principle embodied in the 1967 Act is an important one, which ought to be defended, and we should extend that right to United Kingdom citizens living abroad, whether they are patrials or not.

Mr Patrick Cormack: I thought that there was something phoney in the hon. Gentleman's argument, so I looked at the Standing Orders. I notice, under Standing Order No. 66(1), that if 20 hon. Members had objected to the Bill being taken upstairs in Committee it would have had to be taken on the Floor of the House. Why are we having all this synthetic vitriol? Opposition Members could have had a Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House if they had wished.

Mr Race: These matters are not considered by the House as such; they are considered, as we are all aware by the two Front Benches. I am not making any criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East in this regard, because he clearly understood the principle involved in the Bill. All that I am saying is that the agreement to take the Bill upstairs in Committee arose because it was thought by the Government that it would go through on the nod and would not be objected to by hon. Members.
The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) does not for one moment undermine the basic point that we have been arguing, namely, that the Bill does not extend rights to people who should have them. Whatever the Standing Orders of the House may say, we are now exercising our right to make those points clear, and I believe that the right that we have now—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand the position, the only arguments that are totally in order on Third Reading are extremely narrow. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends could have had a debate on Second Reading had they wished it. The hon. Gentleman is now attempting to have a Second Reading debate on Third Reading, and I submit that he is out of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If I hear the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) dealing with something that is not in the Bill, action will be taken.

Mr. Race: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to confine my remarks specifically to clause 1. The objections to the clause are so substantial that I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against the Bill. The Government ought to take it away, look at it again, and bring back a Bill that gives the rights to patrials and non-patrials alike.
In the Second Reading Committee I made it clear—as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East—that we were in favour of the principle of extending to patrials the right to go to the Parliamentary Commissioner. There can be no doubt whatever that we are in favour of the extension of this liberalising legislation, but we do not think that it goes far enough or that the Government have made any case whatever for drawing the line where they have. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby in opposing the Third Reading.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It should go on record that neither the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) nor any of his colleagues made the attempt that they could easily have made to have the Second Reading taken on the Floor of the House. Opposition Members had no need to rely on the usual channels; they could have included their names on a motionron the Order Paper.
Secondly, if Opposition Members had felt that the Bill was deficient in any respect they could have tabled amendments on Report. They did not do that. I suggest that the opposition is spurious, and that the Bill deserves a speedy Third Reading.

Mr. Blaker: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) made several complaints about the United Kingdom passport holders' scheme. That subject was taken up by his hon. Friends and seems to have been their main theme. I gained the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was complaining about the scheme as a whole and the way in which it is administered. He knows that it is an administrative and discretionary scheme. It was introduced by the Labour Party when it was in power in the 1960s. It was continued by the Conservative Government of the early 1970s and by the Labour Government of the late 1970s. It has been continued by this Government.
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to complain about the operation of the scheme he should remember that he could have suggested in the 1960s that the Labour Government should adopt something different. If, by the early 1970s, the Labour Party had had second thoughts it could have changed the scheme. It is interesting that it is only when the Labour Party is not in power that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have doubts about the management of the scheme.

Mr Moyle: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my remarks. I am not criticising the policy. We are discussing complaints to the Ombudsman, who has no say about policy. We are talking about the growing evidence of maladministration of the scheme, which the Ombudsman could have done something to correct. I refer

to the lengthening waiting queues and to the great gap between the number of vouchers applied for and the much larger number of vouchers issuable under the quota.

Mr Blaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Together with several other hon. Members, he referred to a report recently issued by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. It is an important document. It has been referred to Ministers and is being studied by them. They will reach their conclusions on it at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way. I have read the whole of that interesting document. However, it is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to deal with the document, as he is primarily involved.
I turn to the question whether special voucher applicants should be included in the Bill. I refer to persons who have never resided in the United Kingdom and who do not have the right of abode, because they lack a sufficiently close connection with this country. They therefore fall on the other side of the line. Indeed, it is right to draw that line. It is true that they do not have a right of appeal. Under neither Labour nor Conservative Governments have they had a right of appeal.
I repeat something that was implicit in my earlier remarks, namely, that this is not the right forum in which to propose that such persons should have the right of appeal. If, as the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) apparently believes, there is a case for having a right of appeal, it should not be given in this Bill but should be given in some other way. No doubt the hon. Member will make representations, if he thinks it right, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I come back to the point that in 1979 the Labour Government, in their reply to the Select Committee's report, took the same view as we have taken about where the line should be drawn. That reply included the word "patrial", which Opposition Members appear to dislike.

Mr Foulkes: The Minister is confusing a right of appeal with a complaint of maladministration. Will he try to separate the two things in his mind, because they are completely different?

Mr. Blaker: I am clear in my mind. The right to go to the Ombudsman is a form of appeal. But that form of appeal is not the right form of appeal, if there be such a thing, for United Kingdom passport holders.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) referred to the British Nationality Bill. That, again, is outside the scope of this Bill. If he has views on the British Nationality Bill, no doubt he will take the opportunity to express them when it comes back to the Floor of the House.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the alleged lack of compassion of the Bill. He said that the Bill was "increasingly unkind".

Mr John Page: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman listening?

Mr. Blaker: This is a liberalising Bill. We are giving the right of appeal to the Ombudsman to an extra 3 million people. We are doing what the Labour Government intended to do if they had remained in office. I wonder whether, if they were in power now, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have taken the same view on what would have been an identical Bill.
I turn with relief to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page). It was a breath of—

Mr. Foulkes: Fresh air.

Mr Blaker: —sanity. My hon. Friend agreed that the right of abode was the right test. I congratulate him on taking that view. I hope that he is not too put off by the fact that that was the view taken by the Labour Party before it was converted to its present view.
The hon. Member for Wood Green objected that there had been no Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) pointed out, if 20 hon. Members had risen in their places they could have insisted on a Second Reading debate here. Surely, Opposition Members are not so supine as to rise in their places only when their Whips tell them to do so.

Mr Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is provoking us now.

Mr Blaker: We realise that there are problems in the Opposition's ranks. If, however, 20 Opposition Members had felt strongly enough at the relevant time, they could have insisted on there being a Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member for Wood Green asked why the line is drawn where it is. We discussed this matter in Committee upstairs, as he knows, because he took part in the debate. One of the reasons is the possible burden on staff overseas. We do not know what burden will be cast on them by the addition of 3 million people to those who are entitled to claim under the Bill.

Mr Moyle: If our amendment had been carried, the number entitled to use the consular services would not have been increased. The same number would have been entitled to use the consular services after the Bill was on the statute book as before. Therefore, the number of complaints would not be increased, unless the hon. Gentleman is asserting that there are those who do not complain because they cannot get their complaint properly registered.

Mr Blaker: The potential number who could complain to the Ombudsman would be increased by 4 million. We should beware of so burdening our staffs overseas that they become even more under pressure than at present.
The hon. Member for Wood Green said that there is an element of racialism in the Bill. That I refute. That is nonsense. I shall continue to say that we are adopting the same criterion as the previous Administration. That should make the hon. Gentleman pause. The Bill applies to all, irrespective of race or colour.

Mr Race: It does not.

Mr Blaker: As, historically, Britain has been inhabited by people of white race, it is inevitable that there should be more white people than other races with the right of abode. For the same reason, African countries, for example, have more black citizens than white ones. This is not racialism. Anyone, no matter what his race or colour, who fulfils the conditions has the right of abode and the right to complain to the Commissioner. In the

world of cricket, I refer to the two great Surrey and England batsmen, Mr. Peter May and Mr. Raman Subha Row. Assuming that the children of both are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies with the right of abode in the United Kingdom, they would be treated exactly alike for the purposes of the Bill.
I ask the House to accept that this is a liberalising Bill. It is doing what the Select Committee proposed should be done. It is doing what the previous Labour Government proposed should be done. I believe that the House should accept it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 14

Division No. 125]
[11.03 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Ancram, Michael
Mudd, David


Arnold, Tom
Neale, Gerrard


Aspinwall, Jack
Needham, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Neubert, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Normanton, Tom


Bevan, David Gilroy
Osborn, John


Blackburn, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Blaker, Peter
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Bulmer, Esmond
Pollock, Alexander


Butcher, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Rathbone, Tim


Cope, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Rossi, Hugh


Dover, Denshore
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Speller, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stanley, John


Grieve, Percy
Stevens, Martin


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hawkins, Paul
Tebbit, Norman


Henderson, Barry
Thompson, Donald


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knox, David
Viggers, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Wakeham, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)



McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mather, Carol
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Peter Brooke.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Snape, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dixon, Donald
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Foulkes, George



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Mr. Greville Janner and Mr. Reg Race.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Question accordingly agreed to

Bill read the Third time and passed, without amendment

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the two motions to approve statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

RATING AND VALUATION

That the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 March, be approved

ATOMIC ENERGY AND RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES

That the draft Nuclear Fuels Limited (Financial Limit) Order 1981, which was laid before before this House on 9 March, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

Palace of Westminster

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Greville Janner: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the problem that faces all of us as a result of the deterioration of the fabric of the Palace of Westminster.
The House will know that there was today a reply to a written question by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) which set out, for the first time, the good news that at least we are to start on the work that should have begun so many years ago. I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary who is replying to the debate for the manner in which they have put forward the proposals and enabled them to be discussed by the House tonight—a method which is in accordance with the finest traditions of Parliament in that these matters are discussed and canvassed in the House before they reach outside it.
We all love the House. We work in it, serve in it and live part of our lives in it. It means a great deal to us, and we have been deeply saddened to see it decaying over the past years. I remember being brought here as a child by my father, who first served here in the early 1930s. The chimes of Big Ben throughout the war were the symbol not of the House but of the permanence of democracy and the greatness of Britain. In the past 11 years, I have campaigned to have work begun on the structure, but until today we have had no good news.
Recently, for a period of about six months, I saw this marvellous building in a way that few hon. Members have done. A dearly loved uncle of mine was spending his last few months in St. Thomas' hospital, on the tenth floor. I well remember one evening when he pointed to this great Palace and said how much it meant to him. He was former chief rabbi, Israel Brodie, and he compared this building with the Bible. He said "Like the Bible, every time I look at it I see something new and different and something from which I learn."
All these years, we have watched this building crumbling away. We see now, alas, the results of this lack of sufficient love. We find the building collapsing inside and out, and it is only as a result of that collapse that at last a Government have been induced to start spending the money which is needed in order to keep the building alive.
The fall of the roof of the House of Lords was taken by some to have a certain humorous aspect of putting constitutional advance into a rather swifter state than might otherwise have been the case. But those who work there did not treat it with a particularly fine sense of humour. When stonework started falling upon the public and, much worse, upon us from the area above the entrance to Westminster Hall and Members' Entrance, it was roped off and we began to feel the winds of change approaching this Palace. When we saw just a week ago that other areas were roped off, quite clearly something had to be done fast to avert tragedy.
It is to be done, and I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for managing to get at least some resources to enable the work on the Palace to begin.
The written answer which was given today unfortunately leaves many questions to be answered, all of them, I hope, by the Minister in reply to this debate. The answer stated:
Following a fall of stone in New Palace Yard on 2 March, thorough inspections of other areas of stonework, including the Clock Tower and the Victoria Tower, have been started.
My first question is: why were they not started long before? I understood that the Services Committee in its various reincarnations had required this to be done, and I had been assured in answer to various questions over the years that examinations were already being made to see whether the stonework was in order. Yet today's answer says they "have been started." How long will they take? When will we know other areas of danger? When will they be concluded?
The written answer continued:
As was the case after the fall in Speaker's Green in 1979, further potentially dangerous stonework has been found after every new inspection.
I do not know why that should be a surprise to anyone. One has only to walk along the outside of this building and scrape away at the exterior of the stonework with a finger nail to find it flaking away. When one goes up to see one of the greatest sights in the land—the floodlit tower of Big Ben observed from the roof at night looking like a stage set in all its glory with the blackness of the stonework hidden by the sky—it is possible to touch any of the gargoyles or any other part of those ancient stone works which were hidden away by former generations in a most spendthrift manner. One wonders how they stay aloft because of the years of grime and decades of filth which have eaten their way into them.
I quote again from the written answer:
Since 2 March numerous decorative pieces of stone have been taken down; some of these could have been dislodged by a slight movement.
Is the Minister prepared to assure the House and the thousands of people who visit this Palace that there are not now pieces which may fall and cause grave injury? Would it not be a disgrace if that were to happen? If this were an industrial or commercial building, would not the Government have to step in to ensure that such a disaster did not occur? Why should we, because we occupy a Royal Palace to which the rules do not apply, have a privilege which enables us to avoid the sort of prosecution which should otherwise follow?
A commercial building would be dealt with by the local authority. It could not be used while it was unsafe. What is more, a heavy legal liability would fall on those who occupied such a building if they should have known and could have known that it was dangerous. They would be liable to be sued. No Government should hide behind their freedom from suit in a Royal Palace to avoid the results which obviously might follow if the fears which we all now entertain turn out to be realised.
Is it not enough for us, when we have watched the roof fall in the House of Lords and seen stonework fall from the exterior of the building, to recognise that the entire work ought to be commenced immediately and with energy, and with such funds as are necessary, before we are forced to undertake it by a further disaster such as is now all too nearly upon us?
I shall continue to read the Secretary of State's reply:

The pavement beneath the Victoria Tower has also been closed as a precaution while a canopy is erected to give protection from any stone that might fall from the upper half of the Tower before it can be properly inspected in a few weeks' time.
It should have been inspected years ago. Hon. Members on both sides have been protesting for years about the disgraceful and dangerous state of the building. We on these Opposition Benches wish to know how many other areas are dangerous and whether it is suggested that, by protecting the public where they normally enter the building, all is being done that is necessary to ensure that there will not be a disaster.
The Secretary of State continued:
The inspections so far completed have increased my concern about the condition of the stonework, and, although any identifiably dangerous stones have been removed, I have decided that a start should be made as soon as possible"—
I ask, when?—
on a major programme of repair, restoration and conservation.
We all welcome that, but the word "cleaning" is sadly absent. Surely, while the building is being repaired, restored and conserved, there should be a full, sensible and intelligent cleaning programme.
The Secretary of State continued:
In order to reveal the condition of the stonework, it is essential to remove the corrosive deposits. This will also prevent further chemical attack on the face of the stone.
That is a purpose with which we must all heartily agree
The first phase of the conservation programme, costing about £¼ million, will start in the recess this summer.
Why do we have to wait until then? What is the ludicrous tradition by which the face of the building which is the home of the Mother of Parliaments can only be cleaned, washed, restored, painted and repaired while there are no Members within it? Surely, if there is danger, we should start now. If it were any other building in this country in which the public were at such risk, the repair and restoration would begin at once. Why the delay? Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us tonight.
The first phase is to start this summer, and
the rate of progress thereafter will depend on the extent to which work can proceed while Parliament is sitting
May we have an assurance that there is no reason in law, no reason in fact and no reason in reality why the work should not begin while the House is sitting?
The Secretary of State says:
My aim is to complete the work in as short a time as possible.
That is an aim which we all heartily applaud, and we trust that the work will be done.
This magnificent marvel of a building is a symbol to the world of the democracy which we here serve. It is a disservice to democracy that any Government should allow it to decay. Regrettably, the last two Governments, one Conservative and one Labour, failed to take action. We are grateful for the fact that this Government will take that action now, and we applaud the Minister's decision. However, it looks very much as though the action will be too little and too late. I ask for an assurance that everything in the Minister's power will be done to see that the job is concluded as swiftly as it is begun. I ask the Minister to use this opportunity to tell the House all he can now about the steps which the Government propose to implement a decision for which, I repeat, we are grateful.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I simply want to say that many of his colleagues are deeply grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr


Janner) for raising this important subject. I repeat his question. Is it true that, if this were not a Royal Palace, different rules would apply? If it were a factory or if it came under the care of a local authority, would matters be different? This is an important factor.

Mr. Patrick Cormack): I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising this extremely important matter. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and, through him, the Secretary of State for the answer I was given earlier today. It was a very encouraging reply. It is certainly about time that the Government looked at this problem realistically and provided the House with a sensible solution.
We are not talking here about Parliament, the House in which we are meeting. We are talking about one of the greatest buildings in the world, certainly the greatest building erected in the last century, one of the architectural wonders of the universe, which is an incalculably rich and priceless possession of us all and deserves and needs proper treatment.
I quote a rather telling phrase from a debate which took place in the last century, when this wonderful building, having been built with rather unsatisfactory stone, was, even then, showing signs on decay. A Member of the Liberal Benches got up and said:
that was not economy but scandalous parsimony which grudged what was necessary to support our national monuments.
This is a great building, of which we are the stewards and trustees for posterity. It is incumbent upon the Government to recognise their responsibilities.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have given me this parliamentary answer. There is only one thing I would say. As a member of the Services Committee, which helped to draw up the report, I feel this deeply. At the end of the answer, the Secretary of State says:
the rate of progress thereafter will depend on the extent to which work can proceed while Parliament is sitting"—
The hon. and learned Member has referred to that—
and on the level of funds that I can allocate to this programme in successive years.
I know that our country is facing a hard time. I know that it is the policy of the Government, rightly, to regard with great care and detail every item of public expenditure. But the Services Committee came to the conclusion that the total amount needed to put this building right was no more than about £5 million. That represents less than a mile of motorway.
It would be a terrible condemnation of our generation and of our regard for our architectural heritage if we could not find, and quickly, the £5 million which is needed to put this building right. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply. I again thank the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West for raising the subject, and I hope that tonight we can show the people of Great Britain that their great Parliament House, the Palace of Westminster, will be safeguarded for generations to come.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I begin by thanking the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for drawing the attention of the House once again to this

subject. His considerable interest in the appearance of this historic building and the safety of those who enter it has been shown by his persistent questions to Ministers. I hope that what I have to say tonight will satisfy him that we are determined to conserve this part of our national heritage.
It is my privilege, as a Minister within the Department of the Environment, to hold special responsibility for the Palace of Westminster. The maintenance and protection of its fabric is no light task when one considers that this building covers 8½ acres and contains two miles of corridors, 100 staircases and more than 1,000 rooms. I think that hon. Members can judge for themselves just how much care and thought have been given, and continue to be given, to this task.
At the present time, our efforts are being co-ordinated by the Parliamentary Works Officer based in the Palace, who has the benefit of day-to-day advice from the Department's Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings. Futhermore, architectural drawings relating to the Palace and its furniture and works of art are now being catalogued by Mrs. Alexandra Wedgwood and Miss Phillis Rogers, the recently appointed curator from the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, both of whom are also available to advise us on the fabric. I should also remind the House that my right hon. Friend has, in addition, the services of Sir Robert Cooke as his special adviser on the Palace—a man to whom Parliament and its Members are deeply indebted.
We have inherited the legacy of the finest nineteenth-century building in Britain, with parts dating from earlier centuries. Following the fire which almost entirely destroyed the Palace in October 1834, a Select Committee decided that the new building should be either Gothic or Elizabethan in order to harmonise with Westminster Abbey and Westminster Hall, and Mr. Charles Barry's design was accepted.
The external decoration of the building was Barry's own design, and his plan was to make the new Palace a monumental history of England. The plan was Barry's but the details owe much to Augustus Welby Pugin, whose monuments one finds all around this place and in many other parts of the country. Some 300 statues representing saints and sovereigns of England from the Norman Conquest to the reign of Queen Victoria, were therefore incorporated into the main facades of the building.
Most of the original stonework came from South Anston in Yorkshire. Whilst this stone has a pleasant colour, it is vulnerable, and serious decay set in very quickly, the first report of it being as early as 1861. In 1928 a major refacing programme was begun, which took about 10 years to complete. The stone then used was Clipsham, which is harder and has a good record of resistance to atmospheric pollution. Nevertheless, considerable soiling has occurred on all the Clipsham refacing and in the remaining Anston stone.
The sulphate deposits corrode the surface of the stone and obscure the condition of the undelying material. Stonework that is in urgent need of restoration would be revealed by the removal of the deposits and could be repaired more cheaply whilst the scaffolding was in position.
I shall not remind the House of the various investigations that have been made into the conservation and repair of the stonework. They were set out in the third report from the Services Committee in the 1977–78 Session. Unfortunately, the Government of the day made


no time available for a debate on that report, and it was not until the publication of the Committee's fourth report, in the 1979–80 Session, that the seriousness of the situation received the attention that it merits. That report made seven recommendations about the work which needed attention. Of these, work on the first two recommendations has already been completed and will shortly be started on the third and fourth.
The two main questions which are being asked tonight are whether the fabric has deteriorated further since the Committee reported and how the Government intend to complete the major elements of the proposed programme.
I turn first to the question of safety. The house will recall that in evidence to the Select Committee it was stated that much of the stonework had not been subject to a detailed physical inspection. It was conceded by an expert witness that the real state of the stonework could be far worse than it was possible to tell by examination through binoculars and that it might get worse as each year went by. I told the Committee that I did not think anyone could give a cast-iron guarantee that there was no danger, and I have to repeat that statement tonight.
Although we have removed the potentially dangerous coping stones and the string courses that were identified up to last June, and brushed off spalling stone surfaces, it was still no surprise to me to learn of a fall on 2 March this year. This occurred on the north face of Westminster Hall, not far from the entrance. Although only a few pieces the size of a table-tennis ball came down, this was sufficient to indicate that something was wrong.
As a precautionary measure, the Parliamentary Works staff instigated a series of physical inspections,using a long-arm platform, of areas that had previously been examined only from the ground. They found that it was possible to lift off some decorative stonework without effort. They quite rightly considered it prudent to remove such pieces. To date, they have removed 42 decorative finials from the north elevation of Westminster Hall, and a further 21 pieces from between St. Stephen's Entrance and the Victoria Tower, of which three were fairly substantial in size. These items have been stored for subsequent restoration.

Mr Dalyell: Will the Minister ask his civil servants not to give us the history of England? St. David and St. Andrew are also out there. I simply want to ask whether the latest techniques of using a laser beam to detect faults in stone and metals were being used.

Mr Finsberg: I shall find that out for the hon. Gentleman. I am told that, with the advice of the best stone experts in the country, all that can be done will be done. I shall look specifically at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
It has not been possible with a long-arm p:atform to inspect the top half of the two Towers. Inspection of the lower parts gives cause to believe that some stonework on the upper half of the Victoria Tower may be defective but that the Clock Tower is in a better state of preservation. The pavement beneath the Victoria Tower and further to the south has been closed as a precaution until a protective canopy can be erected. The upper half of that Tower and other areas will be inspected in coming weeks. It is just not possible to do everything at one time. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept from me that a

limited number of people are capable of doing it. There were problems in doing what we wanted, which was to get a long-arm crane to go right to the top, because the pavement would not bear the weight, and this means that scaffolding will have to be erected.
While I have no reason to believe that a serious fall is likely in the immediate future, I cannot entirely rule out that possibility. We must remember that the Palace is not only a great historic building but is a place of work. About 3,000 people are employed here daily, and hundreds of thousands visit the building during the year both to see the Palace itself and indeed to visit their Members. This and the constantly changing requirements of the two Houses put enormous pressures on the fabric of the building and on the staff who maintain it. I commend our Parliamentary Works staff for the very prompt exercise of their professional judgment to ensure that, as far as possible, Members of either House, staff working in the Palace and the general public are not exposed to any significant risk that could be foreseen.
The difficulty in carrying out the work recommended in the Services Committee's fourth report has simply been due to the very large sums of money required. I told the Committee in evidence that I was not able to confirm the availability of funds on this scale—a full programme now being estimated to cost £5½ million over three or more years. The House is well aware that the Government are committed to reducing public expenditure, and it was not felt that the House should be—nor, indeed, would wish to be—exempt from the constraints placed on other sectors.
As a result, the level of funds available for maintenance and new works in the Palace of Westminster and parliamentary precincts has been reduced from some £7½ million per year to £6½ million. Of what remains, about £4½ million is taken up by running costs and essential maintenance. Besides dozens of jobs which hon. Members and the staff consider essential to improve the facilities and efficient running of the building, there are several large and urgent schemes competing for the limited funds that are left. The plant that cools the air in this Chamber is on its last legs. It will cost more than £1 million to replace, and a breakdown would leave us with no cooling at all for at least eight months. I leave hon. Members to imagine what the working conditions would be in such a situation.
Secondly, the House will recall that a heavy wooden boss fell from the ceiling in another place last year. A thorough survey has now been completed, and it is apparent that this outstanding example of Victorian craftmanship can be restored only at a very considerable cost, yet to be accurately estimated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is determined that this particular piece of our national heritage should be restored for future generations.
Parliament is rightly proud of its home. But, at the same time, Members may shrink from committing large sums of money to work on the Palace lest they be thought to be too self-centred and unaware of the economic difficulties which we face. There are, however, vast numbers of people outside Parliament who insist that we preserve our inheritance properly. This was brought home to me last year when my Department received numerous small gifts of money from people all over the country—and abroad—in response to the publicity which surrounded the Services Committee's fourth report. And only three weeks ago The Times urged us to brace ourselves to meet the costs involved.
My right hon. Friend has, therefore, today announced his decision to proceed with the repair, restoration and conservation of the stonework. Work will start in this Summer Recess. One of the reasons is that the management of work here comes under the Services Committee. My Department acts as the agent of that Committee, and we shall be putting to it a proposal and telling it that the cost can be contained within reasonable bounds only if the two Houses are prepared to accept any inconveniences resulting from work continuing whilst Parliament is sitting. I must make it clear that it is not our decision. Many hon. Members will recall the experiments into stone conservation methods in the 1970s and that the working conditions inside the Palace close to the experimental areas were by no means intolerable.
I shall, therefore, shortly be consulting the House authorities to see whether continuous working would be acceptable to them. I am sure that hon. Members will accept any inconveniences as their personal contribution to a most worthy scheme.
It is not possible to say how long it will take to complete the conservation programme until we know whether work will go on while Parliament is sitting and the exact level of funds that can be provided in future years. My

Department's aim, however, is to carry it out in the shortest possible time. The House will wish to see the speedy completion of this work.
Up to now, I have not referred to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). He has done a signal service to the House in three ways: tonight by his words, in the past years by views given to the Services Committee, and by his delightful book, from which I quote to end this speech. He describes it as at once the home of Western democracy and the greatest building of the last century. We are determined to do all we can to ensure that future generations will not be able to accuse us of destroying that precious heritage.
I hope that when I am able to put the document to the Services Committee it will take on board the points I have made and—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order

Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock Midnight